AIM54C vs High Closure Targets

[Naquaii]

1 hour ago, KenobiOrder said:

because it says "IT" switches its own on. The emphasis is on the text referring to the missile doing it, with no mention of anything else.

 

This is the last bit ill say in this thread because its off topic. But from my point of view you are presupposing 54C needs a command simply because the A did. While the 54C did share some functional similarities, I am not sure why we would assume any particular function was carried over unless there is explicit evidence because the bulk of the 54C was entirely new electronics. There appears to be no explicit evidence that it needed a command to to active. But there is very strong implicit evidence, that it probably was able to go active on its own.

 

I appreciate that you feel like there is. But we don't agree. Reverse your statement and you guys presume the AIM-54C do stuff just because a non-whitepaper public news article say the two missiles share technology that may or may not influence seeker design and implementation. The evidence just isn't there either way and in that situation we chose to stick with what we knew but if we find even partial evidence for autonomous activation I can assure you that we will try to implement it but I can also assure you that it is very likely that it will still share a lot of design considerations with the AIM-54A.

 

That said, this discussion is going no-where but like I and @Ironmike said we have leads we're following atm and we're hopful that it'll turn out to everyones expectations. Please stick to the topic in here, feel free to ofc discuss this but don't expect much more from our side on this topic until we're ready or new information appears.

[Naquaii]

6 hours ago, Triggerjo23 said:

Again, I wasn't trying to be rude and I had no intention of being so nor do I think I was, merely trying to help out. On the matter of documentation, you will most likely not acquire it as it is ITAR controlled but I hope you can. Also, as I said earlier, given the real evidence regarding the AIM-54C you are making a larger leap in guesswork than anyone else as far as I can see. I really hope one day you can fix this and I assure you seeing every patch worsen or leave the Tomcat in the same place it is right now feels a lot like groundhog day too. I have had patience with it for a long time and maybe one day I will be able to return to it but for now I won't be able to which is unfortunate. Good luck and I wish you and Heatblur the best.

 

The way I see it it's you that are asking us to completely disregard proven information about a missile that has a direct connection to the AIM-54C just from a public news article saying that the AIM-54C share similarly named technology with another missile that we in itself know little about. Technology that in itself may or may not impact seeker logic design considerations.

Completely changing our modelling of the AIM-54C out of that information is to me a much bigger leap of faith than making it an improved AIM-54A.

 

That said we're not asking for the real documentation here, we're well aware of the classification and ITAR issues but we do have other leads that may well convince us to see it your way, just give it some time. But please see above about this thread and discussion.

 

I'm sorry you feel that you can't fly the F-14 because of this and I do hope our findings will eventually be to your liking so you can return.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Naquaii

[nighthawk2174]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 

The way I see it it's you that are asking us to completely disregard proven information about a missile that has a direct connection to the AIM-54C just from a public news article saying that the AIM-54C share similarly named technology with another missile that we in itself know little about. Technology that in itself may or may not impact seeker logic design considerations.

The A and C can hardly be called similar on the elctronics front, the entire electronics bay was taken out and replaced.  There is no evidence, as in none, that any electronic components from the A made it onto the C.  Making the C like the A is a foolish decision that does not match reality plain and simple, they are not the same missile on the inside.  One is late 50's tech and other is early 80's tech...  They are not comparable in their limitations at all in any way shape or form.

 

Also we know quite a bit about how the 120 works from various manuals, I have 5 separate sources that talk about the 120's operation in detail at this point.  Each go into a lot of detail about how the 120 works.  So you saying we don't know how the 120 works is just false there is no other word to use.  All of these sources taken together build a very detailed picture of the 120's stages of operation.  And the terms used are a PERFECT match to the terms used and description of the 54C's modes of operation.

 

What we do know is that the tech used in the 54C was used in the 120, that they were developed by the same company at the exact same time.  That the 54c's command inertial system was used in the 120.  And we know how the 120 works...  I'm sorry but this isn't that hard to work out that the 120A and 54C are essentially the same missie.

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

Completely changing our modelling of the AIM-54C out of that information is to me a much bigger leap of faith than making it an improved AIM-54A.

No it wouldn't be it is quite the opposite, quite simply the C should be treated as a completely new missile compared to the A not just an upgrade.  Replacing all  of the electronics is not a "small" upgrade.  Plus lets be straight up here your not stupid you know as well as we do the information you want to prove how the 54C works we will not get. And if we do so happen to get it it will  be ITAR controlled.  So ultimately you HAVE to base your modelling off of what you can get and what you can get fully indicates @KenobiOrderand @Triggerjo23are correct and you are not.

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

That said we're not asking for the real documentation here,

You sure because it sure seems like it.

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

 

we're well aware of the classification and ITAR issues but we do have other leads that may well convince us to see it your way, just give it some time. But please see above about this thread and discussion.

 

I'm sorry you feel that you can't fly the F-14 because of this and I do hope our findings will eventually be to your liking so you can return.

 

What we have is what were going to get and it is more than enough to make a reasonable assumption about how the missile works.  You don't need a document that says the sky is blue, which is what you're demanding, to make a reasonable guess that the sky is infact blue.  There are just so many indications of how the 54C works (the fact that the command inertial system of the 54C was used in the 120  should be enough on its own.   I don't get why you don't think it is, its completely unreasonable that this is not enough.  There is no evidence to support your  argument.

[Naquaii]

8 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

The A and C can hardly be called similar on the elctronics front, the entire electronics bay was taken out and replaced.  There is no evidence, as in none, that any electronic components from the A made it onto the C.  Making the C like the A is a foolish decision that does not match reality plain and simple, they are not the same missile on the inside.  One is late 50's tech and other is early 80's tech...  They are not comparable in their limitations at all in any way shape or form.

 

Also we know quite a bit about how the 120 works from various manuals, I have 5 separate sources that talk about the 120's operation in detail at this point.  Each go into a lot of detail about how the 120 works.  So you saying we don't know how the 120 works is just false there is no other word to use.  All of these sources taken together build a very detailed picture of the 120's stages of operation.  And the terms used are a PERFECT match to the terms used and description of the 54C's modes of operation.

 

What we do know is that the tech used in the 54C was used in the 120, that they were developed by the same company at the exact same time.  That the 54c's command inertial system was used in the 120.  And we know how the 120 works...  I'm sorry but this isn't that hard to work out that the 120A and 54C are essentially the same missie.

No it wouldn't be it is quite the opposite, quite simply the C should be treated as a completely new missile compared to the A not just an upgrade.  Replacing all  of the electronics is not a "small" upgrade.  Plus lets be straight up here your not stupid you know as well as we do the information you want to prove how the 54C works we will not get. And if we do so happen to get it it will  be ITAR controlled.  So ultimately you HAVE to base your modelling off of what you can get and what you can get fully indicates @KenobiOrderand @Triggerjo23are correct and you are not.

You sure because it sure seems like it.

What we have is what were going to get and it is more than enough to make a reasonable assumption about how the missile works.  You don't need a document that says the sky is blue, which is what you're demanding, to make a reasonable guess that the sky is infact blue.  There are just so many indications of how the 54C works (the fact that the command inertial system of the 54C was used in the 120  should be enough on its own.   I don't get why you don't think it is, its completely unreasonable that this is not enough.  There is no evidence to support your  argument.

 

No, you saying it is won't make it so.

 

Please stick to the topic. I'm not going to discuss this further.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Naquaii

[Triggerjo23]

5 hours ago, Naquaii said:

 

The way I see it it's you that are asking us to completely disregard proven information about a missile that has a direct connection to the AIM-54C just from a public news article saying that the AIM-54C share similarly named technology with another missile that we in itself know little about. Technology that in itself may or may not impact seeker logic design considerations.

Completely changing our modelling of the AIM-54C out of that information is to me a much bigger leap of faith than making it an improved AIM-54A.

 

That said we're not asking for the real documentation here, we're well aware of the classification and ITAR issues but we do have other leads that may well convince us to see it your way, just give it some time. But please see above about this thread and discussion.

 

I'm sorry you feel that you can't fly the F-14 because of this and I do hope our findings will eventually be to your liking so you can return.

 

I am not asking you to disregard proven information at all as you have no information you are willing to accept on the missile. Vice versa, you are asking me to accept something you have no evidence for as all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I am not arguing over the way the 54a works, I am trying to clarify on the way the 54c works based of official nomenclature used in all descriptions of it's functions. They are not just similarly named as that would defeat the purpose of it being a nomenclature, they do not just casually name these systems. Nomenclature "The body or system of names used in a particular specialist field". It is a much bigger leap of faith to assume that a missile made decades apart from it's predecessor is just as obsolete especialy once given the the expressed updates which are stated to be present on another known and contemporary missile. It's clear that there is a phylisophical devide between us here so I am just going to leave it at that.

 

Perhaps your lead will take us somewhere but I doubt it as you will most likely just get the same level of info depending on the source. If it is a freedom of information act request then it will probably get rejected due to ITAR and if it is someone just telling you then they are at risk of breaching ITAR restrictions if it comes from ITAR controlled documents. I left my part on a good note with Iron Mike and am now right back to debating with yourself so it's best just to agree to disagree I think, but good luck with your lead.

Edited October 2, 2021 by Triggerjo23

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

On 10/1/2021 at 3:37 PM, IronMike said:

Guys, let us stay on the bug report topic please. We really do appreciate your input, but you have to trust us, too, when we say we need more or better proof. The upside: we found a trail that will likely lead to the changes you desire, so please be patient there. In time, the phoenix missiles will get to where they should be, but it is a time consuming process that requires patience also from our side, concerning the new API mainly, and following up on leads that actually do provide proof beyond even if really great guesstimates. A lot of good things will be coming and I am certain they will make you happy, but we need time to do it proper is all. Thank you all for your very kind understanding and patience with us.

A "trail" has suddenly appeared ?
 

[IronMike]

3 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

A "trail" has suddenly appeared ?
 

 

Yes, like a rainbow in the sky.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

"we found a "trail" that will PROBABLY lead to the desired changes" 

 

 

Absolutely did not see this coming /s  

Edited October 4, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[Cobra847]

26 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

"we found a "trail" that will PROBABLY lead to the desired changes" 

 

 

Absolutely did not see this coming /s  

 

Yes, we love adding unrealistic, reputation damaging features that cost us a lot of time and money to research, implement, test and ship. (and bonus: argue about on the forum!)-- just to make our F-14 better than the competition.


/s.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Cobra847

[TLTeo]

HB Tomcat bias confirmed! Riot!!!!1111111111

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

26 minutes ago, Cobra847 said:

Yes, we love adding unrealistic, reputation damaging features that cost us a lot of time and money to research, implement, test and ship. (and bonus: argue about on the forum!)-- just to make our F-14 better than the competition.


/s.

 

You're just catering to your buyers and from a business point of view that's completely understandable. 
It's a bit tricky though in the simulator business but your buyers are happy and that's the most important thing i guess. 

You caved to the pressure.
I mean come on it's pretty clear.  

I honestly saw this coming from the very first "aim54 should go active on it's own" thread over a year ago. It was just a matter of time    
At least Ironmike is can also laugh about it judging from his comment

 

 

[Airhunter]

13 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You're just catering to your buyers and from a business point of view that's completely understandable. 
It's a bit tricky though in the simulator business but your buyers are happy and that's the most important thing i guess. 

You caved to the pressure.
I mean come on it's pretty clear.  

I honestly saw this coming from the very first "aim54 should go active on it's own" thread over a year ago. It was just a matter of time    
At least Ironmike is can also laugh about it judging from his comment

 

 

 

Uninstall.

[Naquaii]

17 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You're just catering to your buyers and from a business point of view that's completely understandable. 
It's a bit tricky though in the simulator business but your buyers are happy and that's the most important thing i guess. 

You caved to the pressure.
I mean come on it's pretty clear.  

I honestly saw this coming from the very first "aim54 should go active on it's own" thread over a year ago. It was just a matter of time    
At least Ironmike is can also laugh about it judging from his comment

 

 

 

It could also be that we want actual proof before we implement something like this, something that should be abundantly clear by now on these forums.

 

We're certainly not going to allow one butthurt user on the forums stop us from implementing it if we find proof for it.

[IronMike]

14 minutes ago, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

You're just catering to your buyers and from a business point of view that's completely understandable. 
It's a bit tricky though in the simulator business but your buyers are happy and that's the most important thing i guess. 

You caved to the pressure.
I mean come on it's pretty clear.  

I honestly saw this coming from the very first "aim54 should go active on it's own" thread over a year ago. It was just a matter of time    
At least Ironmike is can also laugh about it judging from his comment

 

 

 

It is enough now CSGO. You can think what you want, but we will not further stand to you smearing our name. We didn't cave to anything, but unlike you, we have access to sources and SMEs who can lead us in the right direction. This has absolutely nothing to do with our buyers or anything else. Just stop it. And yes, it is laughable, if you don't mind me saying so. We in fact knew way before these threads that the AIM-54 would potentially go active on its own, and we still stand by it: the "proof" that was presented here, was not enough. Only a source that we have, was good enough to point us in the right direction, after chasing down what was needed for quite a while.

Honestly, if you keep making these posts we will implement @gyrovague's Laser TCS, lmao, a thing we did during development for our own fun: any aircraft that got illuminated by the TCS would simply explode. Then you will know we are just here to make your day more miserable lol. Seriously, it is getting utterly ridiculous.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

yeah ok 

[TLTeo]

3 minutes ago, IronMike said:

a thing we did during development for our own fun: any aircraft that got illuminated by the TCS would simply explode

Is there a way to correlate this to someone's ED forum account, and only kick that in for particularly annoying forum posters?

[IronMike]

Just now, TLTeo said:

Is there a way to correlate this to someone's ED forum account, and only kick that in for particularly annoying forum posters?

 

Unfortunately not. But boy was that fun lolol... Too bad we actually do have to hold ourselves to higher standards, heh.

[Airhunter]

Can we like yeet this guy? He was already banned from most DCS discords.

[TLTeo]

6 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Unfortunately not. But boy was that fun lolol... Too bad we actually do have to hold ourselves to higher standards, heh.

Maybe when ED implements the new DCS Forum Modding API...and yeah, you guys at HB put in a good effort, put some people's feelings don't care about facts.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

1

That does not really represent "most" 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Csgo GE oh yeah

[IronMike]

Just now, Airhunter said:

Can we like yeet this guy? He was already banned from most DCS discords.

 

Nope. We like our CSGO lol, the forums would be way more dull without him.

 

[Airhunter]

2 minutes ago, IronMike said:

 

Nope. We like our CSGO lol, the forums would be way more dull without him.

 

 

That is true. It just gets old after you keep telling the same story for over 2 years.

[Csgo GE oh yeah]

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression is important guys.
Peace out 
 

 

 

[IronMike]

Just now, Csgo GE oh yeah said:

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression is important guys.
Peace out 
 

 

 

 

You are always most welcome to express yours. Just please do not be surprised if answers reflect the kind of expression you share is all.

[Airhunter]

Not all opinions and thoughts are valid or should be respected. Facts and reason stand above everything.

 

EDIT: if only once said individual would have provided factual evidence / proof of the claims he was making people would react much differently and take him seriously. In fact, I have provided plenty of counter-evidence, which he simply dismissed and just called me names in DM's. The bugs that were known and repdoduced were already fixed by HB as well - namely desynch and the TCS silent launch.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Airhunter