Jump to content

AIM 54/Tomcat bans and prohibitions in competitive play due to easily reproducible missile desync


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DroptheHammer said:

Regarding TSS small... Any missile which is going mach 5 and then only goes pitbull in the last 3-4 NM will only have 1-2 seconds at most of warning before hitting.  First of all, an IRL RWR doesnt "instantly" light up, it does take some time for it to register a real threat, identify it and present it to a user.  Next, there's human lag, once you hear something, it takes time for your senses to perceive it and classify that.  On top of all of this is netcode lag.  So yes, things can work completely as intended, and if it takes 3/4 of a second for the RWR to classify it and 1 second for you to react, that leaves about .250 second before the missile impacts you.  

 

The SPQR guys put together a great composite video of this:

 

NOTE: I did not change the target size switch from default.


Edited by Kula66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kula66 said:

Thanks IM.

 

Is this something you were aware of previously? I ask because its been mentioned for quite a while; should we bring things like this to this forum for your attention?

 

I was very surprised that all these 'major' issue being banded about, have little or no posts either here or in the ED/Missile bug forums. I guess most of them aren't issues at all, but lack of understanding.

 

I was also wondering why I have never heard of these issues as well. I don't have my head in the tournament world, but I have my head quite deep in these forums here and have never encountered such a bug report before! So yeah, if there are issues like this please report them here!!! There is no use if people just complain about issues within their own community and nobody tells the devs about them!


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a lot of debate, and the decision was made to allow the 14, with a number of fairly major restrictions and penalties (ie. forfeit a round) for desync.

 

I really sympathise with the tournament organisers, there is a perception among a fair few people that the 14/54 is broken, and they are trying to find a compromise to keep everyone happy, but there are some people convinced its got massive issues and has had for months.  

 

This latest 'feature' (54s appearing on radar) really hasn't helped!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kula66 said:

Thanks IM.

 

Is this something you were aware of previously? I ask because its been mentioned for quite a while; should we bring things like this to this forum for your attention?

 

I was very surprised that all these 'major' issue being banded about, have little or no posts either here or in the ED/Missile bug forums. I guess most of them aren't issues at all, but lack of understanding.

 

 

Yes, please always do so, this hadn't come to my attention earlier. This is also exactly what I meant when I said that we would have wished event organizers, or folks who experience legitimate issues, would approach us more pro-actively. We can barely keep up with the plethora of posts and threads on the forums, let alone watch through every single stream or so, hoping to catch a comment that concerns us. If that AOA thing has been around for a while, it would have gotten a higher prio from the get go. Such things are not small issues at all. But of course the majority of complaints, as illustrated so nicely above by @DroptheHammer - are owned to a fundamental lack of understanding in all things BVR, from tactics to technical aspects.

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Kula66 said:

 

The SPQR guys put together a great composite video of this:

 

NOTE: I did not change the target size switch from default.

 

 

I counted 12 seconds of RWR warning..no problems there. This was a very long shot so they were somewhat understandably not expecting the missile yet. When I get long range kills with my AIM-54s (70 percent of my kills flying on the 104th server) tacview always shows the target aircraft reacting just like in this video...usually split-s and countermeasures...when the missile goes pitbull. People get killed by long range shots because they wait until they get a missile warning to react. If you are flying toward and F-14 who is at high altitude, hot on you, and fast then you must expect a missile to be on the way soon. If you are in a viper, a hornet, or another Tomcat and have an SA page or TID then you should note an oncoming F-14s aspect change to mean they have fired and are starting to offset, or an altitude change to mean they have fired and are getting down into thicker air. You have to anticipate incoming  missiles and notch without waiting for the missile to get close enough to go pitbull. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We checked the high AOA desync issue, unfortunately also not on our side. We'll liase with our partners at ED to see if this can be fixed outside of updating the aim54s.

  • Like 1

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks IM. I can see this being a particular issue, since many BVR comps end up low, and since the 54 drops quite a distance when you launch, I often pull up hard just before firing ... potentially, and unconsciously, triggering this issue - not that I've seen it my self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the F14 Tomcat angst gets annoying. Every time when people start to struggle with a module or weapon, its the developers fault. Instead of looking on there own tactics how to deal with a certain threat, in some cases the rule "go up, blow up" applies and if someone gets not out of this box he can keep complaining until he stopps playing the game.

 

Everybody knows, we have a general desync issue in the game, deal with it. But, it gets obvious that the F14 gets nerfd at most.

 

It seems nobody takes a complain about the JF SD10 TSS small (missile API), and the ultra strong nail from the radar, what shows  up as 20 miles away from the F16 for example, what is in reality 100 miles away...I would ban this module too or restrict it to heaters only, sounds good? No, it dosent sound good....And I can deal with it, I take this issue into my tactics to fight this plane with proper SA.

 

The F16, pulling 9gs with tanks on, or the radar, stronger then a F15 radar common guys, get a grip...

 

I am not a fan of posting a tacview, where someone looses it, sorry for that, but I just wanna show how easy a 54 defeat is (easy is rong, u need some training too), if you train it with youre SQN or as a lonewolf pilot in SP. My last issue is to fight a Tomcat one vs one......thats a fact...the unotch able PAL/TCS 54s lol stop crying....

Tacview-20210615-153256-F-14B vs F16 low.zip.acmi

 

cheers


Edited by MoGas
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MoGas said:

All the F14 Tomcat angst gets annoying. Every time when people start to struggle with a module or weapon, its the developers fault. Instead of looking on there own tactics how to deal with a certain threat, in some cases the rule "go up, blow up" applies and if someone gets not out of this box he can keep complaining until he stopps playing the game.

 

Everybody knows, we have a general desync issue in the game, deal with it. But, it gets obvious that the F14 gets nerfd at most.

 

It seems nobody takes a complain about the JF SD10 TSS small (missile API), and the ultra strong nail from the radar, what shows  up as 20 miles away from the F16 for example, what is in reality 100 miles away...I would ban this module too or restrict it to heaters only, sounds good? No, it dosent sound good....And I can deal with it, I take this issue into my tactics to fight this plane with proper SA.

 

The F16, pulling 9gs with tanks on, or the radar, stronger then a F15 radar common guys, get a grip...

 

I am not a fan of posting a tacview, where someone looses it, sorry for that, but I just wanna show how easy a 54 defeat is (easy is rong, u need some training too), if you train it with youre SQN or as a lonewolf pilot in SP. My last issue is to fight a Tomcat one vs one......thats a fact...the unotch able PAL/TCS 54s lol stop crying....

Tacview-20210615-153256-F-14B vs F16 low.zip.acmi 12.48 MB · 3 downloads

 

cheers

 

Quoted for truth...

  • Like 1

Current modules:

FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map......ah yes, forgot the Super Carrier! Shows you how often i fly these days....

Modules in waiting: MiG-23, A-6, F-4U, F-8, Falklands Map

Wish list: South East Asia map, F-4J/N, F-15A/C, Su-27, Sea Harrier FRS.1, Mirage III, MiG-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, firstly i strongly agree with current F-14 bans&restrictions on PvP events. If these bans were caused by a single bug, yeah that would be a foolish thing to completely ban. But hey, there are too many bugs and too many ways to trigger one of them. 


"We're certainly disappointed in the decision-making process of various tournaments- especially those we have sponsored. We will not be involving ourselves in sponsoring tournaments that do not allow the F-14 for now."


About this, yeah i can understand your situation but come on, these desync bugs are around for a good 6-7 months. Rather than throwing the ball to other responsibles (if its caused by ED's API or smth else) you guys just could work together and fix these things. 
Instead of fixes, in every update we only see its getting worse and worse. And now the "no RWR warning" is back with the latest patch. 

Yeah, every missile has desync issues and unrealistic things going on but lets just take a look and try to find which one of them is the most common and most affecting the gameplay. AIM-54s and F-14s !


I have the F-14 and i bought it to play what it's intended to be played in, A2A. The week after i bought it, a patch came in, and boom! RWR warnings were gone. Almost every PvP server decided to ban the AIM-54 and tomcats, which is a legitimate decision. And this means i cant play a module i bought to play in the way it should be played on. And then with later patches yeah rwr thing was fixed but desync came into the battlefields. And im not talking about a simple desync, this missile really has amazing skills in desyncing. (not considering the other weird acts of aim54, just gonna talk about desync)
 

Personally, i've experienced many of these desync things bcs we were testing it to find out how far its gonna go and i know most of the techniques to trigger a desync. And the weirdest one i've seen is a missile (AIM54 ofc) crashing to a mountain and exploding on there and then it *flies* to the target which is behind that mountain missile was crashed into, and then kills the target. And this wasnt a problem at first since we've only seen it once, we just laughed it off. But then with time going on, it started to happen more often. It happened both on populated servers and private servers by the way, so it's not completely related to the server.
 

In short, I'm really disappointed with the HB and the F-14. When I bought the module it did not have such problems. Yes, I know it's an early access module, but probably no one expected that HB would *add* such bugs to this module then without bothering to fix it and cause different problems with each update for 7 months.

I wish I could see the future. If I had seen the current state of the module when I bought it, I would not have given even a penny.

Anyways, i'll leave a simple tacview file (its a server-side file and i dont have track file, i had it disabled on my settings when this thing happened) and go. 

Apologies if it's too harsh, but couldnt say these things with a more soft language.

desync.acmi

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, vtaf_archer said:

About this, yeah i can understand your situation but come on, these desync bugs are around for a good 6-7 months. Rather than throwing the ball to other responsibles (if its caused by ED's API or smth else) you guys just could work together and fix these things. 

 

And how are they going to do this?  Magic?  ED hasn't dealt with the desync in a robust manner for anything (missiles, tracks) and ED are the only ones who can make this right.  Not anyone else.


Edited by GGTharos
  • Like 7

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

And how are they going to do this?  Magic?  ED hasn't dealt with the desync in a robust manner for anything (missiles, tracks) and ED are the only ones who can make this right.  Not anyone else.

 

Important part;

"you guys just could work together and fix these things. 
"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, Oggy20 said:

 

Important part;

"you guys just could work together and fix these things. 
"

 

Nope, important part: "ED are the only ones who can make this right."

 

The moment the Phoenix leaves the rail and becomes a little flying object control, by design, reverts to ED. There is literally nothing HB need to do here, not even liase with ED.

 

The best place to get attention to this issue and work it up the priority list would be the Weapon Bugs section. However since this is probably heavily entangled with the already janky netcode this is likely why ED haven't done anything to fix it yet, there is probably no cheap fix.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not a fanboy of ED, nor HB. And not a hater either. Yes i got the point. In every report everyone says the exact same thing *It's not HB s fault its all ED s fault*

Well, we can clearly see ED is unable to fix such things. Probably because they already have to focus fixing core game things, official module things, new modules etc. They have more workload than HB. 

If we inspect other missiles (the ones which completely done by ED, such as AMRAAM) we cant see such bugs or desync. Even if we see bugs its not like the phoenixes' bugs. 
The only missile and module is banned from some PvP communities is F-14, by HB. At this point we've been reporting bugs for 6-7 months and still nothing changed. Actually no, its changed. It got worse.
 

And still, whenever somebody posts their opinion or a bug report, HB always says its not their fault. Bro, even if it's not your fault its still related to your module which has been banned from events. These bugs can also be triggered with TSS, PH ACT, PSTT, TCS, PAL. All are features of F-14.
 

And many people on forums are just trying to defend HB in this. If everybody accepts this thing as it is, they will continue to postpone possible fixes. Actually i dont care about it anymore since its banned from organisations and I'm not flying it anymore, and also i already gave up on F-14 and any other future HB projects. 

But it still should be fixed and at least they should try to fix this with priority. Instead of focusing on these bugs which causes F-14 to be banned modules on such events, they are saying its not theirs fault, its ED's fault and they focus to the other useless things such as a *dynamic tailhook*. Wait, actually why tomcat didn't have a dynamic tailhook feature till now, its a navy plane!? Anyways, forget about that hook thing. Its a entire different thing. 
 

The main thing is, HB seems like refusing to fix, or refuse help ED to fix it. Thats what I get from this conversation. PvE communities already don't gets involved at all in these things, and unsurprisingly most of the F-14 users are being fanboy and saying **its not a bug, its a feature of a 1970s missile to be able to teleport** and others saying **yeah its a bug but not related to F-14**. Continue like this. F-14 will continue to being banned and even after 5 months later we will still see aim54 desync reports in here. 

But hey, it's used in Top Gun movie and it has good cockpit sounds. It's a great module.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s quite possible the 120 doesn’t show desync because it’s no as fast / long ranged so it simply doesn’t have time to diverge as much.

 

We have no insight into the exact setup of the missile API provided by ED, but based on what has been said in reply to various queries it would seem third parties can:

 

1) define a flight model within some limits, HB have done this and have never mentioned changes to the core setup. It was based on fairly convincing CFD research so we could assume it’s pretty solid. Probably a combination of thrust / drag / motor timeout time

 

2) tell the engine that their aircraft at pos x,y,z has fired a weapon, in this case an AIM54, probably along with the current x,y,z of the target object. The newer API is known to let HB set whether the weapon can go active on its own based on distance from target, this is false for almost all Phoenix modes.

 

Control is now entirely in the hands of ED and their missile code. The 54 is still on an older version as it still exhibits the big oscillations when it completes its loft. 

 

From the module code within HB’s hands there are likely only 2 things they can do at this point.

 

a) tell the missile a new target coordinate

b) tell the missile to go active

 

both of these things are still processed and handled in ED code to determine if the missile will turn, and whether according to its flight model how much speed it will bleed etc.

 

what is there within these options that HB are failing to do? What is going unacknowledged on their part?

 

I’m not really sure what has happened in the past few weeks that everyone has decided to crap on HB and their efforts on this module? One thread after another of unsubstantiated claims and ignoring any attempt to clarify or discuss reasonably what the issue apparently is.

 

guess it’s just HB’s turn in the barrel.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:

The main thing is, HB seems like refusing to fix, or refuse help ED to fix it. Thats what I get from this conversation. PvE communities already don't gets involved at all in these things, and unsurprisingly most of the F-14 users are being fanboy and saying **its not a bug, its a feature of a 1970s missile to be able to teleport** and others saying **yeah its a bug but not related to F-14**. Continue like this. F-14 will continue to being banned and even after 5 months later we will still see aim54 desync reports in here. 

But hey, it's used in Top Gun movie and it has good cockpit sounds. It's a great module.

 

 

While I am sorry that you feel this way, there is still a couple things that need to be set straight. 

1. Missile desync concerns not just our missiles. The aim54 may make them more visible due to excess ranges and due to using an old missile API, which is being changed at the fastest pace possible. ED needs to create something, then we implement it, etc. We cannot implement what is being worked on and we do not have. The AIM120 gets new stuff first, because ED rightfully will not give us things that are still not finished on their side. All 3rd party missiles are affected the same by this. So if you ban the F14, you also have to ban other missiles (not modules) that do have the same issues and that have been proven in the same way. It is simply not true that this is endemic to the F-14. And that has nothing to do with finger pointing. But once the missile is off the rail, we have no control over it - and never will.


We define the missiles parameters and capabilities in our files and then we control in what mode and at what target the missiles are launched. The only control we have over them after launch is whether our own radar still sees a target if in a supported mode and when the seeker is supposed to go active (if in TWS). Everything else in regards to what the missile does, how it maneuvers, how it syncs over the net or how it interacts with targets is a black box for us. We have no insight. 

 

2. We have been working closely with ED on this issue for over a year. Our part is implementing the new missile API and FM, their part is fixing the desync, and both them and us do the best we can. The F-14 not only tries, but also does push boundaries in DCS, so that everything evolves, so that a better, more realistic and more complex future in simming can be enjoyed. Getting it all right at once is nigh impossible and getting everything right at all, takes a very long time. But it is both worth the effort and wait in our opinion.

 

3. The team who made the tailhook does not even work on missile stuff... AIM54 API has been the TOP priority for over a year now, but creating a completely new missile API, adjusting it, changing it, and then giving it to 3rd party devs, reworking the entire CFD data into a completely new missile FM that needs to be learned first, waiting for new changes that halt implementation in between - all of these things take time. Would we like to deliver this faster? Yes. Can we? No. No matter how much any of us wishes. To be frank, many have completely unrealistic expectations and managing the expectations in front of a realistic setting, is as important as it is that we rush to fix whatever we can as fast as we can. The latter is on us, but the former is on you, to put it bluntly. All we can do is try to make everyone understand better, but if you do not believe us in the first place, there is little we can do.

 

4. Banning the Tomcat from events entirely is as ridiculous as it gets. Full stop. Mogas said everything that needs to be said about it. Heck, we'd understand if someone said "aim54s are banned" or "missile shots with high AOA will get you disqualified", etc. but there is no need to ban the entire aircraft. And if you allow the SD-10, then it is odd not to allow the aim54. It is Tomcat Angst mixed with legitimate issues mixed with nonsense and little effort to proof what is real or what not (see Target size switch, which just isn't a bug, and no one will convince me otherwise, until they can prove it). Everything that has been proven, has also been acknowledged and is also being worked on. F-14 players are being punished for issues that are not exclusive for the F-14, or haven't even been proven yet to be an issue at all, no matter how much you want to paint it that way.

 

5. If this disappoints, we are sorry, but we cannot just change reality, because you do not like it. Simulators are shifting grounds, and all we can do is to move forward and continue to improve. Some things go faster, some things go slower. That's not a choice, or at least not most of the times. And if it is, we certainly always decide to do it rather faster than slower, if we have an influence on that and if it is a high priority item. AIM-54s, again, are top priority, believe it or not.

 

6. We're not refusing anything or anyone, no one is saying it is a feature - srsly I haven't heard anyone say this yet, and if you say they did, show me a quote pls - and yes, it is a bug, and it is in no way related to the F-14. It is related to desync and the aim-54s using an old missile FM and thus partially also old API, which is being worked on. You can accept that or not, but it will not change the facts at hand.

 

7. We tested RWR warnings with our testers extensively, and we did not see any aim54s not giving an RWR warning. This was done during the course of the past two weeks and this weekend again. What turned out is that Jester does not call SARH warnings from the RWR, which is being fixed asap. Unfortunately also here, if it happens that you do not get an RWR warning, and if not owed to normal circumstances (too close, deadzone, etc) - then this too is related to desync likely. We haven't seen actual proof of this yet. Test it with the AI, any module: the moment you fire a phoenix you will see them react and chaff. If an RWR of some module does not show you an RWR warning, this is on the RWR side of said module.

 

8. The way I would go forward as event organizer is try to isolate the instances that help the desync to happen and set up rules that prevent them. It is the inclusive way. We cannot tell anyone how to do their events, but we stand by what we said. If we see that Tomcats are excluded entirely for no good reasons, we will not support such events anymore. That doesn't mean that we wouldnt support an F-16 vs F-16 only event or similar sorts, why not. But events that inflict restrictions on the Tomcat where it isn't necessary, will simply no longer be supported by us.

 

9. In Air to Air, Tomcat drivers are more at a disadvantage than other players - with the exception of serious desync, when it happens - due to the aim54s unreliability, the utter ease to notch them even below 10nm, the more difficult radar, the fact that they need a RIO or have limited functionality if using Jester, and and and... It is this constant complaint that we would have intentionally made the Tomcat "OP" which is the real reason why a minority - of always the same people, mind you - tries to overemphasize the issues of the Tomcat that could bring a disadvantage to other players, while almost completely neglecting all the disadvantages some other rather unrealistic features of other modules, or issues with the aim54s, actually do have on the Tomcat players themselves.

 

And, while we're ofc sorry you feel that way, saying that we would *add* bugs to the module and then not care about fixing them is unfair and not the right way to get our attention or to convince us of anything. We're not lying when we say that these are bugs that are hard for us to track down and most of them end up outside of our control due to how air to air weapons work in DCS.

Thank you for your input.


Edited by IronMike
  • Like 20
  • Thanks 5

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, MoGas said:

All the F14 Tomcat angst gets annoying. Every time when people start to struggle with a module or weapon, its the developers fault. Instead of looking on there own tactics how to deal with a certain threat, in some cases the rule "go up, blow up" applies and if someone gets not out of this box he can keep complaining until he stopps playing the game.

 

Everybody knows, we have a general desync issue in the game, deal with it. But, it gets obvious that the F14 gets nerfd at most.

 

It seems nobody takes a complain about the JF SD10 TSS small (missile API), and the ultra strong nail from the radar, what shows  up as 20 miles away from the F16 for example, what is in reality 100 miles away...I would ban this module too or restrict it to heaters only, sounds good? No, it dosent sound good....And I can deal with it, I take this issue into my tactics to fight this plane with proper SA.

 

The F16, pulling 9gs with tanks on, or the radar, stronger then a F15 radar common guys, get a grip...

 

I am not a fan of posting a tacview, where someone looses it, sorry for that, but I just wanna show how easy a 54 defeat is (easy is rong, u need some training too), if you train it with youre SQN or as a lonewolf pilot in SP. My last issue is to fight a Tomcat one vs one......thats a fact...the unotch able PAL/TCS 54s lol stop crying....

Tacview-20210615-153256-F-14B vs F16 low.zip.acmi 12.48 MB · 6 downloads

 

cheers

 

 

Well said. 

  • Like 4

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IronMike said:

9. In Air to Air, Tomcat drivers are more at a disadvantage than other players - with the exception of serious desync, when it happens - due to the aim54s unreliability, the utter ease to notch them even below 10nm, the more difficult radar, the fact that they need a RIO or have limited functionality if using Jester, and and and... It is this constant complaint that we would have intentionally made the Tomcat "OP" which is the real reason why a minority - of always the same people, mind you - tries to overemphasize the issues of the Tomcat that could bring a disadvantage to other players, while almost completely neglecting all the disadvantages some other rather unrealistic features of other modules, or issues with the aim54s, actually do have on the Tomcat players themselves.

 

 

Yes, this is conveniently ignored 😉

 

Thanks for the detailed responses.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, vtaf_archer said:

Im not a fanboy of ED, nor HB. And not a hater either. Yes i got the point. In every report everyone says the exact same thing *It's not HB s fault its all ED s fault*

Well, we can clearly see ED is unable to fix such things. Probably because they already have to focus fixing core game things, official module things, new modules etc. They have more workload than HB. 

If we inspect other missiles (the ones which completely done by ED, such as AMRAAM) we cant see such bugs or desync. Even if we see bugs its not like the phoenixes' bugs. 
The only missile and module is banned from some PvP communities is F-14, by HB. At this point we've been reporting bugs for 6-7 months and still nothing changed. Actually no, its changed. It got worse.
 

And still, whenever somebody posts their opinion or a bug report, HB always says its not their fault. Bro, even if it's not your fault its still related to your module which has been banned from events. These bugs can also be triggered with TSS, PH ACT, PSTT, TCS, PAL. All are features of F-14.
 

And many people on forums are just trying to defend HB in this. If everybody accepts this thing as it is, they will continue to postpone possible fixes. Actually i dont care about it anymore since its banned from organisations and I'm not flying it anymore, and also i already gave up on F-14 and any other future HB projects. 

But it still should be fixed and at least they should try to fix this with priority. Instead of focusing on these bugs which causes F-14 to be banned modules on such events, they are saying its not theirs fault, its ED's fault and they focus to the other useless things such as a *dynamic tailhook*. Wait, actually why tomcat didn't have a dynamic tailhook feature till now, its a navy plane!? Anyways, forget about that hook thing. Its a entire different thing. 
 

The main thing is, HB seems like refusing to fix, or refuse help ED to fix it. Thats what I get from this conversation. PvE communities already don't gets involved at all in these things, and unsurprisingly most of the F-14 users are being fanboy and saying **its not a bug, its a feature of a 1970s missile to be able to teleport** and others saying **yeah its a bug but not related to F-14**. Continue like this. F-14 will continue to being banned and even after 5 months later we will still see aim54 desync reports in here. 

But hey, it's used in Top Gun movie and it has good cockpit sounds. It's a great module.

 

What a profound crock of sh*t.

 

You may have read the responses to the issues but you capacity for comprehension is clearly lacking. How your powers (or apparent lack thereof) of evaluation reach the conclusions you have is biblically disingenuous if not downright illogical.

 

 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2021 at 7:39 PM, MoGas said:

All the F14 Tomcat angst gets annoying. Every time when people start to struggle with a module or weapon, its the developers fault. Instead of looking on there own tactics how to deal with a certain threat, in some cases the rule "go up, blow up" applies and if someone gets not out of this box he can keep complaining until he stopps playing the game.

 

Everybody knows, we have a general desync issue in the game, deal with it. But, it gets obvious that the F14 gets nerfd at most.

 

It seems nobody takes a complain about the JF SD10 TSS small (missile API), and the ultra strong nail from the radar, what shows  up as 20 miles away from the F16 for example, what is in reality 100 miles away...I would ban this module too or restrict it to heaters only, sounds good? No, it dosent sound good....And I can deal with it, I take this issue into my tactics to fight this plane with proper SA.

 

The F16, pulling 9gs with tanks on, or the radar, stronger then a F15 radar common guys, get a grip...

 

I am not a fan of posting a tacview, where someone looses it, sorry for that, but I just wanna show how easy a 54 defeat is (easy is rong, u need some training too), if you train it with youre SQN or as a lonewolf pilot in SP. My last issue is to fight a Tomcat one vs one......thats a fact...the unotch able PAL/TCS 54s lol stop crying....

Tacview-20210615-153256-F-14B vs F16 low.zip.acmi 12.48 MB · 7 downloads

 

cheers

 

 

I agree with everything you said there! Regarding that tacview...that was a fun little fight we had there, always a pleasure 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShinyMikey said:

 

I agree with everything you said there! Regarding that tacview...that was a fun little fight we had there, always a pleasure 🙂

Same here....we had some nice close flights already where you got me too....S! Anytime Baby  🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@IronMike

I really appreciate you taking a look at this and your thoughtful responses.  I'm surprised to hear this stuff wasn't 'on your radar' (sorry) but it is a huge relief to hear it has been acknowledged and is a high priority for the team. Its such a great module and an incredible effort to make the Tomcat what it is- It is frustrating for all parties. 

Really looking forward to seeing the new missile API implemented, and the next few patches. 

 

If you need testers, feedback, tracks, videos, or instructions on how to reproduce issues- Please reach out, there are a several dedicated tomcat players on our team who would love nothing more than to help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DoorMouse said:

@IronMike

I really appreciate you taking a look at this and your thoughtful responses.  I'm surprised to hear this stuff wasn't 'on your radar' (sorry) but it is a huge relief to hear it has been acknowledged and is a high priority for the team. Its such a great module and an incredible effort to make the Tomcat what it is- It is frustrating for all parties. 

Really looking forward to seeing the new missile API implemented, and the next few patches. 

 

If you need testers, feedback, tracks, videos, or instructions on how to reproduce issues- Please reach out, there are a several dedicated tomcat players on our team who would love nothing more than to help. 

 

 

It is my pleasure and thank you for your kind offer. I may get back to you on that. Please be so kind and shoot me a PM about your team, so it doesnt get lost in the plethora of threads. Thank you. 🙂

Heatblur Simulations

 

Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage.

 

http://www.heatblur.com/

 

https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...