AIM-54 Changes / new API fixes are live in today's patch

[sLYFa]

Obviously us and ED hoped it would work better than the results we are getting, but we're marching in the right direction. Thank you.

Can you confirm that any changes were made to the F-14 in yesterdays patch? Again, I can see no difference to previous behavior and certainly none of what is described in the first post in this thread.

 

[IronMike]

Can you confirm that any changes were made to the F-14 in yesterdays patch? Again, I can see no difference to previous behavior and certainly none of what is described in the first post in this thread.

 

No changes were made to the F14 whatsoever. The code for the new API was in the F14 for a while now, however the fixes ED made should have activated it, which as it looks like, it did not. So it is falling back on the old API, to circumscribe it a bit (thats not really how it works, but it illustrates what I mean). I hope that makes sense.

[sLYFa]

Ok thanks for letting us know!

[Oceandar]

Not only that, TWS AIM-54s arent giving pitbull warnings of any kind.

Just flew in GS and read chats players complained about this in F-16 and JF-17.

[Hawkeye91]

 

TWS will always be a bad option for maneuvering targets, atm no changes are planned, so how it handles such situations will be as it is now.

 

 

My experience has been that TWS is bad for even non maneuver targets. Ghost tracks from track hold constantly fly off in random directions at Mach 3 against non-mauenevering, non-notching aircraft. I can’t get a single AIM 54 to work in TWS. Even in single player where rubber banding/desync doesn’t exist.

 

Edit: I think I know why now, its DCS's clairvoyant AI that pop chaff the second the missile leaves the rail and creates a billion new contacts. The AI needs to be reworked so that they only pop the chaff when the missile goes actives because it shouldn't have a single clue when that missile leaves the rail.

[IronMike]

Just flew in GS and read chats players complained about this in F-16 and JF-17.

 

It is quite possible that it is a DCS-wider issue, since the API changes from ED likely don't only affect our missiles.

[foxwxl]

Dear all, ED is watching this thread as well, however what we'd need would be short tracks of the several issues. If anyone of you could post short tracks (as short as possible), it would help a lot! Thank you!

 

A new confirmed bug now seems to be no RWR warning for aim-54s, too.

 

To answer above questions: 1. TWS mid course guidance will not trigger a launch warning, when it goes active it will trigger a MSL launch warning. 2. PH ACT launches the missile active off the rail, I am not sure whether it gets DL updates from the AWG-9 at this point anymore, I need to ask Naquaii or Gyro for that. My guess would be no.

Thx, good to know.

And how about the PDSTT launched aim54？Should the warning triggered same as a AIM7(once off the rail it directly generates the MSL LCH warning)?

 

[Harlikwin]

@IronMike

 

Any chance you guys can get ed to hotfix patch this, it has caused problems in the online world. No one other than 14 drivers like the new Aim54X "Stealth" phoenix.

[EMSGoof]

Noticed PAL not working today, talked to another person who said they were having the same issue a day or two ago. Dunno if related, or if already reported.

[captain_dalan]

2nd part of those tests from last night. The missile is still worse in STT then it is in TWS, so no big changes there. It doesn't give of a RWR warning signal though, so that's a new bug.

 

@IronMike

 

No one other than 14 drivers like the new Aim54X "Stealth" phoenix.

 

Really? And what makes you think US F-14 drivers "like" when our rides and tools are broken and don't work as intended? Or to put it in other words, would you like it if whatever is that you drive became a sub orbital killing machine?

 

Dear all, ED is watching this thread as well, however what we'd need would be short tracks of the several issues. If anyone of you could post short tracks (as short as possible), it would help a lot! Thank you!

 

A new confirmed bug now seems to be no RWR warning for aim-54s, too.

 

To answer above questions: 1. TWS mid course guidance will not trigger a launch warning, when it goes active it will trigger a MSL launch warning. 2. PH ACT launches the missile active off the rail, I am not sure whether it gets DL updates from the AWG-9 at this point anymore, I need to ask Naquaii or Gyro for that. My guess would be no.

 

EDIT: Naquaii got back to me: So IRL it would always fall back on SARH when it does not find a target on its own and to check it has the correct target. So even with ph act, in PDSTT and TWS it would indeed also use SARH/DL. However: this is not possible to recreate in DCS, as a missile that goes active pitbull in DCS cannot take commands anymore. Thus any ph act launched missile in DCS, will behave like an active pitbull missile and not receive SARH/DL guidance anymore. For any other mode than PDSTT or TWS this of course is also the case irl (and in game).

 

Thank you all for your kind and great input thus far. Obviously us and ED hoped it would work better than the results we are getting, but we're marching in the right direction. Thank you.

 

How do we share our tracks? I have a bunch of them, from tacview, length from 3 to 6 minutes each.

[KlarSnow]

Think he means in game tracks, not tacviews, tacviews dont help them troubleshoot that much, it's mostly derived data, not in game system truth data.

[IronMike]

Think he means in game tracks, not tacviews, tacviews dont help them troubleshoot that much, it's mostly derived data, not in game system truth data.

 

Correct. On top of that the telemetry data in tacview is nice for in game use, but can be very inaccurate, too, and not reliable for our purposes. However, tacviews ofc help illustrate the problem. But what ED needs is actual tracks.

[IronMike]

@IronMike

 

Any chance you guys can get ed to hotfix patch this, it has caused problems in the online world. No one other than 14 drivers like the new Aim54X "Stealth" phoenix.

 

Unfortunately no, there is nothing on our side we can do, it seems also to affect the Jeff and other missiles. Mind you the API is not only for our missiles. (In other words, we need to wait for a fix from ED.)

[Viper 13]

Hi IronMike and the ED Devs

 

Question for you both on the new API.

 

Does the missile get the TTI data from the WCS when its launched and then go active by itself when the countdown reaches 16?

 

Or is the go active command sent via DL when the TTI reaches 16 second?

 

I have been testing the TTI in best case scenario. A non manoeuvring target set to no reaction flying straight and level towards my F-14B

 

Test 1. Aim-54c fired at 52nm in TWS auto. TTI 101 seconds. Missile hit the SU-27 at 22 seconds TTI

 

Test 2. Aim-54c fired at 50nm in TWS auto. TTI 102 seconds. Missile hit the SU-27 at 21 seconds TTI

 

Test 3. Aim-54c fired at 52nm in TWS auto. TTI 103 seconds. Missile hit the SU-27 at 22 seconds TTI

 

I have also got the same results flying against a friend while hosting a MP mission

 

How does the Aim-54C hit the target as it should not go active until 16 seconds TTI?

 

Ironmike you said the TTI should be taken with a grain of salt. But how does the missile go active if its not using the actual TTI from the WCS?

 

I am unable to provide a track as they just desync. I have attached the miz file as this can easily be replicated

TTI.miz

[sLYFa]

The new API didn't make it into the last patch after all, so you won't see any changes for nor. Btw the "go active" command is send via datalink to the PH (unlike the Amraaam, which IIRC goes active by itself).

[Yaga]

 

Unfortunately no, there is nothing on our side we can do, it seems also to affect the Jeff and other missiles. Mind you the API is not only for our missiles. (In other words, we need to wait for a fix from ED.)

 

Are you sure? All other missiles seem to produce active warnings as expected. The Aim-54 reliably doesn't, specifically it seems when fired at ranges where the seeker is not going active off the rail.

 

Could this be another instance of a universal missile 'problem' that is only noticeable when applied to something unique about the Aim-54? I recall back in the day when the desync was terrible, it was technically true that all missiles desynced. But desync increased with time of flight, and since in those times Phoenixes were still lethal at triple the range anyone else was even considering shooting for, it wasn't a problem with other missiles.. It was a Phoenix problem.

 

Seems to me the "stealth phoenix" is a really bad outcome in the course of developing this thing, and I'm sure most people would like to think there's some urgency in solving it. Maybe there's some stop-gap or band-aid that can be used to mitigate the problem while you're waiting for ED.

 

 

[Skysurfer]

 

Are you sure? All other missiles seem to produce active warnings as expected. The Aim-54 reliably doesn't, specifically it seems when fired at ranges where the seeker is not going active off the rail.

 

Could this be another instance of a universal missile 'problem' that is only noticeable when applied to something unique about the Aim-54? I recall back in the day when the desync was terrible, it was technically true that all missiles desynced. But desync increased with time of flight, and since in those times Phoenixes were still lethal at triple the range anyone else was even considering shooting for, it wasn't a problem with other missiles.. It was a Phoenix problem.

 

Seems to me the "stealth phoenix" is a really bad outcome in the course of developing this thing, and I'm sure most people would like to think there's some urgency in solving it. Maybe there's some stop-gap or band-aid that can be used to mitigate the problem while you're waiting for ED.

 

 

I think the patch on the 18th should solve it (hopefully) - DCS doesn't just purely revolve around airquakers and SATAL and if you have a problem with it on your server simply "ban" or disable the Phoenix for Tomcats and make them use Sparrows only. In fact, if RWR's were even remotely realistic on other modules you'd get a simple "spike" warning until impact in a PDSTT guided Phoenix. Same applies to R-33's or any Monopulse or PD guided Fox 1, generally speaking.

[GGTharos]

 

I think the patch on the 18th should solve it (hopefully) - DCS doesn't just purely revolve around airquakers and SATAL and if you have a problem with it on your server simply "ban" or disable the Phoenix for Tomcats and make them use Sparrows only. In fact, if RWR's were even remotely realistic on other modules you'd get a simple "spike" warning until impact in a PDSTT guided Phoenix. Same applies to R-33's or any Monopulse or PD guided Fox 1, generally speaking.

 

And do you have some information that would verify this, and counter known information about PD radars inserting additional signal when the missile is launched, or is this based on the assumption that STT and guidance are the same signal?

[dundun92]

 

I think the patch on the 18th should solve it (hopefully) - DCS doesn't just purely revolve around airquakers and SATAL and if you have a problem with it on your server simply "ban" or disable the Phoenix for Tomcats and make them use Sparrows only. In fact, if RWR's were even remotely realistic on other modules you'd get a simple "spike" warning until impact in a PDSTT guided Phoenix. Same applies to R-33's or any Monopulse or PD guided Fox 1, generally speaking.

 

Im pretty sure theres a waveform change for most SARH, even PD SARH. Also I think this is less about SATAL and whatnot, and more about the fact that is a unintended, unrealistic, game breaking bug. A TWS launched, AIM-54 RN gives no active warning at all, its essentially a Fox 2. Thats definitely not intended, and pretty much ruins any sort of BVR vs F-14s.

[Eagle7907]

I engaged 2 Foxhounds that way with AIM-54A Mk60s and had no problem: first one killed in TWS, break when TTI = 16 sec; Second one killed in BRSIT. Tacview file joined.

 

Now that you mentioned it, I was using C. I just tried with Mk60s. Same result as yours. Thanks!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[UWBuRn]

Tested multiple times* firing an AIM-54C in STT at 25-30 nm against an Su-27 AI, so going SARH/DL all the way. When missile is at 10 miles from target (where usually was able to go pitbull) i command Jester to break lock and go silent: the missile guides itself to a hit, so the new API seems not there or not working correctly.

 

Also AIM-54A Mk60 showed the same behavior, with the variation of losing lock more frequently (probably due to weaker chaff resistance).

 

Will try again tomorrow also with TWS and also with non maneuvering targets.

 

*That's what happened most of the times, sometime the missile just lost lock, spoofed by chaffs, ECMs and maneuvering... usual stuff.

 

I'm not posting track as they just desync.

[SgtPappy]

Just remember UWBuRn that the AI countermeasures are far more potent in general than human countermeasures. You can see this by launching an AIM-9M for example at 2 nm head on and they can spoof with almost no maneuvering and maybe a few flares. Try this on a human and it would never work.

 

Their missiles too may or may not be less resistant to countermeasures as well. I can notch even today's tougher AIM-54s from the AI flying right at the deck, firing in a look-up situation by forcing the missile to go up and then notching + chaff near the ground all the way to merge. However against my friend online, no chance of this at < 5nm.

[dundun92]

In singleplayers chaff is simply more effective for missiles on the old API. Dont ask me why.

[Yaga]

 

I think the patch on the 18th should solve it (hopefully) -

 

Me too. Two weeks isn't too long a time to wait for a fix.

 

DCS doesn't just purely revolve around airquakers and SATAL and if you have a problem with it on your server simply "ban" or disable the Phoenix for Tomcats and make them use Sparrows only.

 

Since you've rigorously ruled out the interests of MP and competitive DCS as at all suggestive of the larger community, who would you specifically point to for which this mishap is a good outcome?

 

In fact, if RWR's were even remotely realistic on other modules you'd get a simple "spike" warning until impact in a PDSTT guided Phoenix. Same applies to R-33's or any Monopulse or PD guided Fox 1, generally speaking.

 

Yes, you would receive an indication representative of how you were engaged. Our Phoenix terminally engages under active guidance. You are correct, if you currently launch an Aim-54 at a spiked target and maintain that spike until impact, your target will only ever receive your spike. But when your missile can complete its intercept with no indication from either you or it whatsoever, I can't imagine why on earth you would.

[captain_dalan]

 

Correct. On top of that the telemetry data in tacview is nice for in game use, but can be very inaccurate, too, and not reliable for our purposes. However, tacviews ofc help illustrate the problem. But what ED needs is actual tracks.

 

Here are some quickies. Aside from the previously mentioned stuff, another curiosity. When launched in P-STT or in TWS with the ACM cover up, the radar doesn't lose track. I might be because the AI doesn't register it is under attack and doesn't defend as aggresively. Never the less, launching in P-STT seams to be the most efficient way of firing the thing right now, short of mad-dogging it sub-20NM.

NoTTI_PSTT_launch_mad_dog.trk

NoTTI_on_2nd_launch.trk

NoTTI_STT_launch_mad_dog_on_2nd.trk