Almost impossible to hold a track file on the TID

[DarkStar79]

For me the F-14 at its current state is very frustruating! It feels almost impossible to hold a track file with Jester all the way until the Aim 54s go active. It feels like im hitting maybe 10% of the missiles.

 

Is it really this hard in real life to be able to hold a track?  It seems like you have to have a human Rio at this state.  Jester isnt good enough with theese recent changes to the Aim-54. Something have to happen! This is just to frustruating..

 

Maybe on PVE servers its working ok. But on hardcore pvp servers, the other plane can just make a hard 90 degress turn and the track is lost and the missile goes stupid..

 

The lofting seems strange also, as soon when the missile looses the trackfile the lofting stops and the missile goes in a straight line??

[Naquaii]

You have to keep in mind that the TWS implementation in the AN/AWG-9 is one of the absolutely oldest TWS implementations in existence. It simply didn't have the update rate and processing power to keep up with targets maneuvering a lot, and it wasn't designed with that in mind either. Added to that the AWG-9 also has large blind doppler areas because of it's age making the notch and zero doppler filters large.

 

That said we're continually looking at improving it and have removed hard to find bugs in the past. But that it looses track of small targets trying to evade you is realistic.

Like I've said in another thread, this is the weaker link of the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 against fighters, not the missile itself.

 

The lofting behaving strangely when loosing the trackfile is likely a dcs-ism due to not having anything guiding it yet, the missile behavior on EDs side isn't completely transparent to us.

[DarkStar79]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

You have to keep in mind that the TWS implementation in the AN/AWG-9 is one of the absolutely oldest TWS implementations in existence. It simply didn't have the update rate and processing power to keep up with targets maneuvering a lot, and it wasn't designed with that in mind either. Added to that the AWG-9 also has large blind doppler areas because of it's age making the notch and zero doppler filters large.

 

That said we're continually looking at improving it and have removed hard to find bugs in the past. But that it looses track of small targets trying to evade you is realistic.

Like I've said in another thread, this is the weaker link of the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 against fighters, not the missile itself.

 

The lofting behaving strangely when loosing the trackfile is likely a dcs-ism due to not having anything guiding it yet, the missile behavior on EDs side isn't completely transparent to us.

Thx for the reply. I still love the module, I had a better experiance just now with some other tactics.     its just hard when you meet fighters and you launch the phoenix and they just notch for a couple of seconds and the phoenix is toast.

 

Just think Jester needs some tweaking so he maybe can hold a track little better. Is he even using the notch filters and so on?

 

Im having better luck now at launching at like 60nm thou, and you have to be more picky on what target to lauch at. I guess its more realistic.

 

And like you say the missile seems fine.  Its just hard to keep the trackfile to guide the missile to the target..

[Naquaii]

There's really not much Jester can do other than the MLC being in AUTO which disables it when looking up more than three degress.

 

That said, using TWS against small fighters that are actively trying to defend should be regarded as somewhat of a hail mary, it might work but it's really not a surprise if it doesn't. In some cases it's simple better to use STT.

 

The advantage of launching at long ranges though can be that the target isn't expecting it and thus not maneuvering, which makes it vulnerable to TWS even if a small target.

 

All this is representative of a system as old as the AN/AWG-9 and learning to work around those limitations isn't trivial and also something that is quite fun imho.

 

Glad that you like the module!

[Sideburns]

Getting below your targets can really help the awg-9 gather and hold it's tracks, it also seems to work better over sea and over land look down is not its strongest game.

[DarkStar79]

Yea, its just to learn and adapt for sure! 

 

One more thing, whats the best way to break TWS auto when i have launched a Phoenix?  If i know that the missiles not gona hit, it seems impossible to get out of TWS-A?

Is there a fast way of doing it?

[Sideburns]

Just now, Kristoffer79 said:

Yea, its just to learn and adapt for sure! 

 

One more thing, whats the best way to break TWS auto when i have launched a Phoenix?  If i know that the missiles not gona hit, it seems impossible to get out of TWS-A?

Is there a fast way of doing it?

 

I use the PLM, pilot lock mode, to "reset" the radar. It is bound to my HOTAS. It is quite handy to reset TWS-A when it looks in the wrong direction pre-TWS launch when you are flying with Jester.

[DarkStar79]

3 minutes ago, Sideburns said:

 

I use the PLM, pilot lock mode, to "reset" the radar. It is bound to my HOTAS. It is quite handy to reset TWS-A when it looks in the wrong direction pre-TWS launch when you are flying with Jester.

Ah ok, nice didnt know that.

 

Is that a realistic way of doing it?  Just wonder how a real rio would reset it?

Edited December 20, 2020 by Kristoffer79

[Sideburns]

2 minutes ago, Kristoffer79 said:

Ah ok, nice didnt know that.

 

Is that a realistic way of doing it?  Just wonder how a real rio would reset it?

 

 

Yeah, probably not realistic and I basically use it to work around Jester. Not needed so much with a human RIO. A quick tap of PLM resets things.

[IronMike]

10 hours ago, Sideburns said:

 

Yeah, probably not realistic and I basically use it to work around Jester. Not needed so much with a human RIO. A quick tap of PLM resets things.

 

It's realistic in the sense that it works as it should, it is not realistic as in a RIO would chew you out, if you'd "reset" his radar work nilly willy

[Sideburns]

Yeah, I've never done that to a human RIO, we usually have a good comms including clearly demarcating who has control of the radar / radar handover around 15nm from target.

[DarkStar79]

is there any way to completely reset the TWS-A when i have launched a missile?  I mean not just reset the view?  I want to completely get out of TWS-A mode and get to TWS manual while i have a AIM 54 in the air i know is gona miss?

[draconus]

On 12/21/2020 at 10:37 AM, IronMike said:

a RIO would chew you out, if you'd "reset" his radar work nilly willy

I'd like to hear that from Jester one day

 

11 hours ago, Kristoffer79 said:

is there any way to completely reset the TWS-A when i have launched a missile?  I mean not just reset the view?  I want to completely get out of TWS-A mode and get to TWS manual while i have a AIM 54 in the air i know is gona miss?

For reset push PLM (it's not just a "view" reset). To go TWS manual just ask Jester - it should've been implemented as of latest beta:

Quote

 

JESTER Menu changes & additions:

• TWS-M switch added

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by draconus

[Lurker]

On 12/20/2020 at 10:44 PM, Naquaii said:

You have to keep in mind that the TWS implementation in the AN/AWG-9 is one of the absolutely oldest TWS implementations in existence. It simply didn't have the update rate and processing power to keep up with targets maneuvering a lot, and it wasn't designed with that in mind either. Added to that the AWG-9 also has large blind doppler areas because of it's age making the notch and zero doppler filters large.

 

That said we're continually looking at improving it and have removed hard to find bugs in the past. But that it looses track of small targets trying to evade you is realistic.

Like I've said in another thread, this is the weaker link of the AWG-9 and the AIM-54 against fighters, not the missile itself.

 

The lofting behaving strangely when loosing the trackfile is likely a dcs-ism due to not having anything guiding it yet, the missile behavior on EDs side isn't completely transparent to us.

 

The frustrating thing is that the AWG9 used to work much better than it does now (This is back before TWS-A was implemented) it still had it's hickups but in TWS manual mode it seemed to be much more reliable against fighter sized targets, as long as you made sure they stayed in the radar's cone. 

 

Is this something that is intended, maybe the MLC filters were changed, enlarged, added? I haven't done much testing (no free time currently) but if this is working as intended than that is fine by me. As long as the community is made aware of the proper tactics to use, and the limitations of the radar I'm all for these little quirks if they represent how the radar performed in real life. It should however maybe be communicated more, maybe even included in the DCS F14 manual, on how to avoid getting into situations where the radar is behaving like it should, but it looks like it's just losing tracks due to bugs. 

 

For example, launching against fighters in TWS-A and then diving to keep the MLC off and denying them the notch is a completely valid tactic to use. In fact I'm gonna try testing that as soon as I can find a decent BVR mission with an air start, and phoenix missiles on the racks

 

 

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

 

The frustrating thing is that the AWG9 used to work much better than it does now (This is back before TWS-A was implemented) it still had it's hickups but in TWS manual mode it seemed to be much more reliable against fighter sized targets, as long as you made sure they stayed in the radar's cone. 

 

Is this something that is intended, maybe the MLC filters were changed, enlarged, added? I haven't done much testing (no free time currently) but if this is working as intended than that is fine by me. As long as the community is made aware of the proper tactics to use, and the limitations of the radar I'm all for these little quirks if they represent how the radar performed in real life. It should however maybe be communicated more, maybe even included in the DCS F14 manual, on how to avoid getting into situations where the radar is behaving like it should, but it looks like it's just losing tracks due to bugs. 

 

For example, launching against fighters in TWS-A and then diving to keep the MLC off and denying them the notch is a completely valid tactic to use. In fact I'm gonna try testing that as soon as I can find a decent BVR mission with an air start, and phoenix missiles on the racks

 

 

 

The TWS in the F-14 will never be as good as the Hornet or Viper ofc and this is something that I'll have to add in more detail to the manual before EA is over.

We have had our fair share of bugs as our TWS is simulated from the ground up under the hood but in general it should be quite ok at the moment and a real TWS will loose tracks that start to maneuver, older ones even more so. But we will continue to finetune and look at it, the biggest worry atm is higher latency mp sessions with a lot of rubberbanding aircraft, it's hard to make sense of tracks doing that.

 

As for tactics the F-14, at least before the -D and the APG-71, you couldn't really maneuver too much yourself either. That tactic your describing of diving after launch might actually not have been a good idea IRL and not a valid tactic as you were kinda warned against maneuvering your Tomcat too much if you were trying to keep your TWS functioning. The WCS just wasn't good enough to keep tabs of everything with the Tomcat maneuvering. That's not to say that you can't do it, but you shouldn't expect it to work flawlessly if you do.

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 

As for tactics the F-14, at least before the -D and the APG-71, you couldn't really maneuver too much yourself either. That tactic your describing of diving after launch might actually not have been a good idea IRL and not a valid tactic as you were kinda warned against maneuvering your Tomcat too much if you were trying to keep your TWS functioning. The WCS just wasn't good enough to keep tabs of everything with the Tomcat maneuvering. That's not to say that you can't do it, but you shouldn't expect it to work flawlessly if you do.

 

Well yeah, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. What is permissible with regards to the antenna array, and the onboard computer and how it extrapolates tracks from available returns. Would a shallow dive be okay? TWS-A seems pretty stable with regards to horizontal movement, I guess not so much in the vertical. If that's the way the real radar operates than that is NOT a bug, but good radar modelling. What about STT? Will the AWG9 hold STT lock better than TWS-A? It should right? I mean it's directing all it's energy at a single target, but then there are all these reports of people losing STT lock against non maneuvering targets too. How much of that is user error? I don't envy you your task Naquaii, and I guess at some point you guys have to say, this is how it operates and be done with it

Edited December 23, 2020 by Lurker

[Naquaii]

7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Well yeah, that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. What is permissible with regards to the antenna array, and the onboard computer and how it extrapolates tracks from available returns. Would a shallow dive be okay? TWS-A seems pretty stable with regards to horizontal movement, I guess not so much in the vertical. If that's the way the real radar operates than that is NOT a bug, but good radar modelling. What about STT? Will the AWG9 hold STT lock better than TWS-A? It should right? I mean it's directing all it's energy at a single target, but then there are all these reports of people losing STT lock against non maneuvering targets too. How much of that is user error? I don't envy you your task Naquaii, and I guess at some point you guys have to say, this is how it operates and be done with it

 

 

STT should be solid, all I've heard from SMEs is that it should be really hard to shake once it's on you. It still have limitations in PD-STT ofc due to the filters but it's a whole other thing than TWS. The only thing you can really do wrong as a RIO in STT is to be in pulse doppler when the target approaches the notch or zero doppler.

[Golo]

I said it before and Ill say it again, you should not model your radar exactly as IRL by whatever documentation you have on it, because it just does not work for in-game purposes. For example the latency and ruberbanding, it would just not happen IRL as it happens in game, and if you model the radar according to specs we will get many viable shots trashed just by latency/warping/netcode, if I have TWS track and it warps few times my track get dropped and after it will pick it up again as a new track if it cant correlate it back as the old track the missile will be most likely wasted. No point fighting with radar like that. 

The TWS times for track holding/ correlation of new track to old ones (or whatever variables the radar needs, as was disscussed before) needs to be enhanced for in game purposes. If not that our in game radar just wont be on par with IRL one, where that would not happen. 

[Naquaii]

3 minutes ago, Golo said:

I said it before and Ill say it again, you should not model your radar exactly as IRL by whatever documentation you have on it, because it just does not work for in-game purposes. For example the latency and ruberbanding, it would just not happen IRL as it happens in game, and if you model the radar according to specs we will get many viable shots trashed just by latency/warping/netcode, if I have TWS track and it warps few times my track get dropped and after it will pick it up again as a new track if it cant correlate it back as the old track the missile will be most likely wasted. No point fighting with radar like that. 

The TWS times for track holding/ correlation of new track to old ones (or whatever variables the radar needs, as was disscussed before) needs to be enhanced for in game purposes. If not that our in game radar just wont be on par with IRL one, where that would not happen. 

 

We are not modelling it exactly as it was in real life, that is just not possible. While I still believe that latency is a factor it is not the majority issue here, you have to have quite large latency issues to have it break the radar, almost to the point where you could argue if you should even play on that server. The simple fact is that, like it or not, the majority of the bug reports we get seem to be people misunderstanding how the radar works simply because of the fact that we've modelled it correctly in regards to how it build tracks and updates and correlates them.

 

Using TWS in the F-14 against fighters that are aware of the threat and actively maneuvering to avoid it is not what it was constructed for. That's not to say that it isn't possible but it shouldn't come as a surprise if you have lost tracks against those kinds of targets.

[Callsign JoNay]

On 12/20/2020 at 2:17 PM, Kristoffer79 said:

For me the F-14 at its current state is very frustruating! It feels almost impossible to hold a track file with Jester all the way until the Aim 54s go active. It feels like im hitting maybe 10% of the missiles.

 

Is it really this hard in real life to be able to hold a track?  It seems like you have to have a human Rio at this state.  Jester isnt good enough with theese recent changes to the Aim-54. Something have to happen! This is just to frustruating..

 

Maybe on PVE servers its working ok. But on hardcore pvp servers, the other plane can just make a hard 90 degress turn and the track is lost and the missile goes stupid..

 

The lofting seems strange also, as soon when the missile looses the trackfile the lofting stops and the missile goes in a straight line??

 

It sounds to me like you're getting notched. Make sure to check MLC is set to out, or that you are at least at a lower alt than the bandits. 

 

My PK is also ~10% with 54s, but it's for different reasons. My missiles either get decoyed by chaff or they lose speed in the descent of the loft as if they have a drag chute attached.

[DarkStar79]

I said it before and Ill say it again, you should not model your radar exactly as IRL by whatever documentation you have on it, because it just does not work for in-game purposes. For example the latency and ruberbanding, it would just not happen IRL as it happens in game, and if you model the radar according to specs we will get many viable shots trashed just by latency/warping/netcode, if I have TWS track and it warps few times my track get dropped and after it will pick it up again as a new track if it cant correlate it back as the old track the missile will be most likely wasted. No point fighting with radar like that. 
The TWS times for track holding/ correlation of new track to old ones (or whatever variables the radar needs, as was disscussed before) needs to be enhanced for in game purposes. If not that our in game radar just wont be on par with IRL one, where that would not happen. 

I think this is a valid point. For game purpos, jester needs to be able to hold the track file maybe 10-20% better. It’s just getting to the point pretty often, that it gets frustrating.

It gets better with a human Rio, but I think Jester needs a buff somehow.

I think I’m pretty much wasting 50% of the Phoenixes in TWS cause of loosing track.

And I think I have good knowledge of how to use them.

I’m playing on DDCS server, where there are a lot of good players. It might be different on PVE servers thou..


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

[Sideburns]

On 12/23/2020 at 2:33 PM, Golo said:

I said it before and Ill say it again, you should not model your radar exactly as IRL by whatever documentation you have on it, because it just does not work for in-game purposes. For example the latency and ruberbanding, it would just not happen IRL as it happens in game, and if you model the radar according to specs we will get many viable shots trashed just by latency/warping/netcode, if I have TWS track and it warps few times my track get dropped and after it will pick it up again as a new track if it cant correlate it back as the old track the missile will be most likely wasted. No point fighting with radar like that. 

The TWS times for track holding/ correlation of new track to old ones (or whatever variables the radar needs, as was disscussed before) needs to be enhanced for in game purposes. If not that our in game radar just wont be on par with IRL one, where that would not happen. 

 

I'd rather the F14 was modelled accurately and the issues of lag and rubberbanding are dealt with separately. If I play a server and it has these issues I tend to just leave anyway (For the F14 or other modules) as it is not fun to play against UFOs. These issues do seem better in the latest patch.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Sideburns
Added latest patch comment

[DarkStar79]

Yea it should be modelled correctly, I agree.

The problem is that the guys flying simulators isn’t flying the planes realistically. Like a real pilot would fly a real plane.

Which makes it a problem, when the guy flying in opposite side just can make a fast 10g 90 turn to notch and the track is lost..

They can just zig-zag all the time and all the Aim-54 is lost.

Just think it can be a problem.


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

[Wildwind]

On 12/23/2020 at 8:42 AM, Naquaii said:

 

We are not modelling it exactly as it was in real life, that is just not possible. While I still believe that latency is a factor it is not the majority issue here, you have to have quite large latency issues to have it break the radar, almost to the point where you could argue if you should even play on that server. The simple fact is that, like it or not, the majority of the bug reports we get seem to be people misunderstanding how the radar works simply because of the fact that we've modelled it correctly in regards to how it build tracks and updates and correlates them.

 

Using TWS in the F-14 against fighters that are aware of the threat and actively maneuvering to avoid it is not what it was constructed for. That's not to say that it isn't possible but it shouldn't come as a surprise if you have lost tracks against those kinds of targets.

I think part of the problem here for us single-player types is that the AI psychically reacts to missile launches it shouldn't know about, which means it will always be maneuvering after a TWS launch.  Which makes TWS pretty hard to use effectively in single-player.

 

That's something ED needs to fix on their end, though.

[Lurker]

On 12/24/2020 at 9:18 PM, Wildwind said:

I think part of the problem here for us single-player types is that the AI psychically reacts to missile launches it shouldn't know about, which means it will always be maneuvering after a TWS launch.  Which makes TWS pretty hard to use effectively in single-player.

 

That's something ED needs to fix on their end, though.

 

Eagle Dynamics has been aware of the all-seeing, all-knowing AI since practically the beginning of time. It seems like something that should be high on their priority list of things to fix right?