We have very different AWG-9 TWS experiences then
Guys you dont understand. The AWG-9 is supposed to update and TWS guide the missile AUTOMATICALLY meaning no need to switch to every single target to update. This issue needs to be addressed and fixed.
I believe it already does this, my understanding is that as long as the other targets you have AIM-54s on are still on the scope alongside the other target you have “hooked” the AIM-54s will get datalink updates for their original targets
seems so, do you use cyclic button or manual cue?
Manual cue, ive long used fully manual radar since ive been a huge fan of radar missiles since i started using them.
It doesn’t, in order to provide datalink updates you have to soft-lock the original target(s).
Theres a critical mistake you make in your first test btw, very shortly after you soft lock your second target, the first target leaves your radar scope, so of course the missile cant get any guidance…
We don’t misunderstand, we are stating what needs to be done in game currently. Some people didn’t know they had to soft lock targets repeatedly to update all missile courses, which is why it is being discussed. The IRL system is currently not utilized and as far as I can tell everyone wants that system implemented properly.
You’re missing the point of the first test. It was disproving the popular idea that if you kept targets in your radar view (without soft-locking) that the missiles would continue to have datalink guidance.
The second I started soft-locking the left target, ONLY the left missile started to maneuver.
The second video is what shows how you successfully update datalink guidance. Locking only one target will not guide both missiles, you have to lock all targets to update datalink.
I think you’re misunderstanding that statement tho. You have to soft lock something, you dont have to flip flop between all targets you launched on as long as one target is soft locked and the others are within the TWS scope.
The first missiles motor ran out by that point and as such couldn’t be seen visually, and the first target left your radar scope afterwards, its not exactly a smoking gun at all…
What I’m saying is your first test is both misunderstanding what’s being claimed, and generally poorly executed to prove anything.
No, this is not how it currently functions in game. It only updates the missile for the target selected for it. You will have to cycle to each Pheonix target before it goes active. The only reason he did these tests was because I had mentioned this weird mechanic. Otherwise, they will fly to the last updated predicted target position.
1 Like
Pretty crazy how TWS and the Aim-54 Phoenix has so many unknowns to them where all other weapon systems and radars are pretty much straight forward. But here we are almost a year of having them and there are still people coming to the forums trying to explain how it all works.
Thats a huge embarrassment to the developers of this bias game. Imagine having so much Russian bias in your game you mess up a weapon system so bad that almost a year after it enters game people still dont know how it works. Everyone knows the Phoenix is held back by some angry developer mad at NATO equipment but man…thats embarrassing.
Rigged Russian carnival game.
3 Likes
if they wanted to Model the F-14 properly, they could have literally reached out to Heatblur about radar and weapon capabilities and How they work.
so ur admiting to stalking other people’s profiles? how nice
5 Likes
I almost promise you as soon as ARH missiles become the norm, the same question will be popping up everywhere. As of current, no other aircraft has ARH, only the Tomcat. Any schmuck that can keybind “Dogfight mode” can use an SARH. It is an entirely different animal than having to control multiple missiles using TWS datalink until handoff. It is complex and tedious, definitely more than what a casual player cares to learn. Arguably, most people think it is as simple as fire and forget when there’s a lot more nuance to it. This isn’t indicative of Russian bias.
2 Likes
it is russian bias because Gaijin is making fucking difficult for us to deploy Fox-3s when the radar should automatically TWS guide them. Im tellign you, when R-77 and R-33/37 get added they will probably rework the whole TWS fox-3 method because russian mains arent gonna be happy if they have to do the same method us F-14 players have been doing.
3 Likes
That sounds subjective at best. People can turn around and say it’s U.S. bias because they have had ARH for over a year. Admittedly, just like most advanced functions in this game, it is either poorly explained or not explained at all. Players tend to have to stumble into the answer. It is because it is not explained well that even Russian mains may not understand how to use DL for multiple targets. At least experienced Tomcat pilots can use this to their advantage for new ARHs, other pilots will have to learn an catch up.
1 Like
Would be true if it wasnt for the fact that the AIM-54 is so badly modelled it loses at all combat ranges and in almost all combat scenarios to the R-27ER, and even to a large extent the 7F/M in WT.
I covered this before, but you have to be AFK, or genuinely bad at the game to die to an AIM-54. Even at high alt, mach 2.0+ launches, which will never happen in-game, vs a target flying at M1.5 without maneuvering, you have over 15 seconds of warning just from the RWR, never mind the visuals from the smokey motor. Theres literally no reason for it to be as bad at it is, this goes beyond balancing, theres no competitive reason to bring the stupid things, theyre just fun for players that enjoy some more complexity in their radar gameplay/operation.
2 Likes
All the presumptuous complaints about Russian bias that has yet to happen isn’t useful to the thread though. The clear and obvious reason is that the F-14 was rushed and the AIM-54 was not going to get any better than it is now until tech mods found and forwarded better information that was obtained later. Now there’s whining that it wasn’t implemented the same week it was found / reported.