The AIM-54C should be able to active on its own.

[Naquaii]

Just now, Airhunter said:

 

Does it still get SARH mid-course in PD-STT though? With the switch active prior to launch that is.

 

 

No, that's not currently possible in DCS. When it's active it's active and on it's own as it is. If that change we'll implement it of course but not currently possible.

[near_blind]

8 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

Incorrect, the switch is pre-launch only.

I've read training documentation from the 90s that explicitly references the usage of the switch post launch. 

[Airhunter]

21 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

What just go on any server and come back with an HONEST opinion on notching ACTIVE phoenixes. 

MK60 or MK47 doesn't matter, they're exactly the same in that regard. 

 

Not really wanting to see some pre-baked opiniated edited 'proof' you make with your friend to prove your point. 
So i hope your testing will be honest and not some propagand bullshit. 

 

I will do some testing myself this weekend as well, and we can compare results. 

 

 

Excuse me, what? Sure, let me hop on GS and hope I can find some Tomcat to fire at me if there are even any flying. The only true normalised comparison and scenario which one can reproduce 100+ times is a pre-set 1v1 with known parameters. What you asked was for me to look at the AIM54A in an online (MP) environment, which is just what I described above. It is not different than on any other server where you might encounter a Tomcat. This is the only way to show, in a reproducable manner, how to counter and defeat the Phoenix and is no edited or tailored manner - the missile will not all of a sudden behave differently than on a populated server (lag not being considered). 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Naquaii]

1 minute ago, near_blind said:

I've read training documentation from the 90s that explicitly references the usage of the switch post launch. 

 

And we have documentation explicitly saying it only works pre-launch.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

I just tested notching the aim120 offline.
It is SO freaking easy, even at mach 1.6 you can notch them every single time. 
20 miles, 10 miles doesn't matter. 100% guarantee. 

 

So how on earth should a missile that is 50 years older be so much more difficult to notch ? It should be much EASIER, not way more DIFFICULT. 

It's madness. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Comstedt86]

2 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

What just go on any server and come back with an HONEST opinion on notching ACTIVE phoenixes. 

MK60 or MK47 doesn't matter, they're exactly the same in that regard. 

 

Not really wanting to see some pre-baked opiniated edited 'proof' you make with your friend to prove your point. 

In what way is the MK60 overperforming? If so on what level should the C47 be in. And is it perhaps the Aim120 that is underperforming in comparison? 

 

I'm having alot more trouble notching / loosing 120s than 54s for sure and they seem to reacquire alot more. 

 

The 54 from what I have seen usually goes dumb after loosing lock. 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Again you are probably notching the F14's AWG, not the ancient  MK60 seeker itself.  
Half the time (or 100% of the time ?) the RWR i should get from the RWR goes silent, and 5 seconds later i explode. 

It should not be much more difficult notching a missile from the 1960's then notching an aim120-c. It's just bonkers. 
 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[near_blind]

2 minutes ago, Naquaii said:

And we have documentation explicitly saying it only works pre-launch.

Would it happen to reference an AIM-54A by any chance? because it would appear the carry over between that variant and the C isn't 100% :rofl:

[GGTharos]

5 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

It should not be much more difficult notching a missile from the 1960's then notching an aim120-c. It's just bonkers. 

 

Yes, AIM-120s need a 'buff'

[Harlikwin]

59 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Yes, AIM-120s need a 'buff'

 

Lol... not you too... 

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Yes yes phoenix missile is never at fault, everything else always is. 

p.s: 
I would really hate it if they actually 'buffed' the aim120 to a point where it becomes basically un-notchable.
It's a big part of the gameplay. 

So once again, in the "DCS universe" AND in real life, there is no way an antique 70 year old missile should outperform a 'modern' missile in every way. 

It's just ridiculous. 
I go eat now 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Airhunter]

6 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Yes yes phoenix missile is never at fault, everything else always is. 

p.s: 
I would really hate it if they actually 'buffed' the aim120 to a point where it becomes basically un-notchable.
It's a big part of the gameplay. 

So once again, in the "DCS universe" AND in real life, there is no way an antique 70 year old missile should outperform a 'modern' missile in every way. 

It's ridiculous. 

 

 

 

How do you know? Also, ED themselves have said that the 120 will receive some needed updates soon which will make it much more lethal. Read up on MPRF.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

How do i now a 70 year old missile should not outperform a modern missile in every way ? 

 

Well, do i really need to answer that ? 

[Airhunter]

2 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

How do i now a 70 year old missile should not outperform a modern missile in every way ? 

 

Well, do i really need to answer that ? 

 

Yes you do. Facts. Please provide them. In what way does it outperform it in DCS apart from specific impulse and kinematics? You doing tests against AI also disproves your own argumentation methods from previously. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Airhunter

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

seeker performance we've been talking about it the whole time. 

 

Notching aim120 is REALLY easy. 

Notching MK60 is .... fubarred and damn near impossible. 

 

I also watch a crapload of tacviews, does it even go after chaff ever ? 
I see the aim120 do weird crap and miss for no reason all the time. The MK60 (again, it's SUPER OLD) grabs on like a bull-terrier and doesn't let go. 

If you come up with some decent video/tacview showing that it is not harder to notch an MK60 than an Aim 120 (note here, it SHOULD be EASIER but whatever i'll settle for just as hard) , i'd like you and me to go in a server and have you shoot some phoenixes at me. 

 

Because I'm not to proud to be told i'm doing something wrong, but unless notching a phoenix should somehow be done differently than notching every other missile .... Is there some secret trick that makes it different from notching other missiles ? 
Because again, notching 120's is REALLY easy. 

But with that super old MK60 it's always a shitshow of disappearing RWR signals , or relentless laser locks for some reason. 

@Naquaii
I do not know if the 'notch angle' is programmable by developers but i honestly think heatblur should have a look at their MK60 and compare it with the aim120 to see what's  up. 
Is there a value that you guys set and if so could you tell me what it is and what the aim120's 'number' is ?
 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Airhunter]

4 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

seeker performance we've been talking about it the whole time. 

 

Notching aim120 is REALLY easy. 

Notching MK60 is .... fubarred and damn near impossible. 

 

I also watch a crapload of tacviews, does it even go after chaff ever ? 
I see the aim120 do weird crap and miss for no reason all the time. The MK60 (again, it's SUPER OLD) grabs on like a bull-terrier and doesn't let go. 

If you come up with some decent video/tacview showing that it is not harder to notch an MK60 than an Aim 120 (note here, it SHOULD be EASIER but whatever i'll settle for just as hard) , i'd like you and me to go in a server and have you shoot some phoenixes at me. 

 

I'm not to proud to be told i'm doing something wrong, but unless notching a phoenix should somehow be done differently than notching every other missile .... Because again, notching 120's is REALLY easy. 

But with that super old MK60 it's always a shitshow of disappearing RWR signals , or relentless laser locks for some reason. 

@Naquaii
I do not know if the 'notch angle' is programmable by developers but i honestly think heatblur should have a look at their MK60 and compare it with the aim120 to see what's  up. 
Is there a value that you guys set and if so could you tell me what it is and what the aim120's 'number' is ?
 

 

 

Again, give me a couple days to conduct said tests and collect the needed data. I am also more than happy to go in a private server with you and conduct the same tests and do some potential teaching here and there. 

[QuiGon]

3 hours ago, Airhunter said:

There is no improved ECM resistance or even such a thing in DCS.

 

Of course there is: chaff resistance!

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

!S 

[GGTharos]

31 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Lol... not you too... 

 

What, you think I'm wrong?   But anyway, you know, it's one of those 'be careful what you wish for' things

17 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

@Naquaii
I do not know if the 'notch angle' is programmable by developers but i honestly think heatblur should have a look at their MK60 and compare it with the aim120 to see what's  up. 
Is there a value that you guys set and if so could you tell me what it is and what the aim120's 'number' is ?

 

There is no such thing as a notch angle. 

[Comstedt86]

47 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Again you are probably notching the F14's AWG, not the ancient  MK60 seeker itself.  
 

 

[Naquaii]

32 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

@Naquaii
I do not know if the 'notch angle' is programmable by developers but i honestly think heatblur should have a look at their MK60 and compare it with the aim120 to see what's  up. 
Is there a value that you guys set and if so could you tell me what it is and what the aim120's 'number' is ?
 

 

 

That's part of the seeker logic and not anything we can set and like GGTharos said, there's no such thing as a "notch angle". Notching is about relative speed being blind to a radar, not angles.

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, near_blind said:

I've read training documentation from the 90s that explicitly references the usage of the switch post launch. 

is it referencing the -54C, and would you be willing to share said documents if not in the thread than via DM?

Edited September 6, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[KenobiOrder]

9 hours ago, Naquaii said:

That both are unproven does not mean yours is more right.

Or yours? What evidence do you have that makes you think it does not?

 

9 hours ago, Naquaii said:

And also, saying that you wouldn't improve the navigational system of the missile if you weren't specifically designing it for being able to go active is a logical fallacy and also does not prove anything. Do you really think that all more modern semi-active missiles have useless inertial systems?

You misunderstand my point. The point is that they put the inertial system in a manner specifically related to the command aspect, so much so that its used in the name of the guidance mode. As you point out, many missiles have inertial systems to improve general nav. But they dont call the sparrows guidance "semi-active inertial".

 

 

[Naquaii]

12 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:

Or yours? What evidence do you have that makes you think it does not?

 

You misunderstand my point. The point is that they put the inertial system in a manner specifically related to the command aspect, so much so that its used in the name of the guidance mode. As you point out, many missiles have inertial systems to improve general nav. But they dont call the sparrows guidance "semi-active inertial".

 

 

 

Obviously I'm referring to that we've drawn this conclusion from the information available to us and like I said if you stumble across any evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to have a look at it.

 

I do get you point but I don't agree with it.

[TLTeo]

14 minutes ago, KenobiOrder said:

What evidence do you have that makes you think it does not?

I'm going to take a very wild guess and say that people who have worked for years on simulating the Tomcat and collaborating with people who actually flew the thing are more likely to have a more educated opinion than what any one of us can find on Google. It's up to us to prove that does not hold by providing tangible information of the contrary beyond nomenclature.