thats nonsense. f14a at 12.7 is pretty bad, the only redeeming feature on it is the flight model, at 13.0 the f14b is not just bad is completely and utterly useless.
It would suffer the same fate as the IRIAF. When it was introduced, it was an absolute plague. I’m not in favor of buffing the AIM-54, because the AIM-54 would be far too strong if it received those improvements: reduced smoke, improved acceleration, 25 G maneuverability, and an air-combat mode.
As a result, the F-14A would be played much more often, its statistics would rise significantly, and with a BR adjustment it would be moved up. And then it would just sit there and rot.
Blockquote still waiting on aim 54C buffs
reduced smoke
improved accelration
25G pull
dogfight mode
That’s the suggestion from the bloke
25g isnt happening as its dual plane, i would add that aside all the buffs it needs to get an improved loft, the aim54 lofts too little ingame, besides this no it wouldnt need rebalancing, only the f14a, as it would just need to get to 13.0 and have aim9l, f14b could go to 13.3 if perfomance is that good. thats it, these missiles still wouldnt be as strong as fakours
Counterpoint, warthunder is already far more accurate then wikipedia, but here people are still complaining about accuracy.
2 Likes
The actuators are clearly moving well before 80ft.
The actuators move, but only to maintain course and not start the change in course (if i’m reading the source in the screenshot correctly). So the total steering is nulled, not the steering inputs. So for example if the missile starts to drift upwards due to wind the actuators move to steer it back to the null position so that the risk of flying into the launching aircraft is reduced. It’s only after 80ft that the actuators can provide input to start changing the course of the missile. I’m not sure about this though, but that is how i read the screenshot provided.
What about stuff like R-77-1, KH-38MT/ML? There’s no thread dedicated to these missiles. How can we know it’s even accurate in the slightest?
You require top secret documents that are somehow “unclassified” for missiles that are still in active service, but then there are exceptions and some things are made based on guesses?
Here is one:
Here is another:
Here is a third:
You can try to get one of those going again and see if other users have sources they can share. Or you could start your own thread about the missiles technical capabilities and start looking for sources to add to it.
There was a thread but players couldn’t behave so it eventually got locked after several attempts of steering things back on topic and Forum Moderators cleaning up the thread. The KH38 in general is a known missile so the flight characteristics should be relatively correct if i have understood things correctly, the only discussion there has been about it is the existence or not of the IR-seeker.
Here is the thread if you want to look through it:
They don’t. Secondary sources are also good if there are at least two of them that say the same thing. The biggest issue many players seem to not understand is when sources aren’t specific enough, in those cases there is nothing to change to if the source doesn’t state numbers or isn’t clear enough about what it means. That or they don’t understand what a secondary source even is and try to use weird third part blogs or Wikipedia as a source.
1 Like
Do we know if this excerpt is in reference to the AMRAAM family generally or to any particular variant?
It’s not relative to the aircraft, but it’s launch orientation otherwise there would be large kick back into the bay it came from, which isn’t the case.
In effect there are two independent guidance “loops”, one that virtually tracks the target (filtered output from Guidance section) and sums target positional data, in order to quantify the pointing error in the current position relative to the predicted point of intercept based off what the guidance section tells it about target motion in the missile’s coordinate frame.
and the other which computes the required adjustments need to eliminate the resultant error in alignment of the current body position with respect to the predicted point of intercept generated by the first loop the result of which is passed to the control section which then decomposes the requested changes into deflection of each control surface axis channel, and sums the result to be passed off to the servos which deflect the control surfaces.
A block diagram of what this may look like (lifted from the F-16)
During launch the former is nulled, the latter is not. What it means is that the data loaded prelaunch into the missile about the target won’t be updated until guidance initiates.
1 Like
people dont give a damn about war thunder being more accurate than wikipedia, this is about the aim120 perfomance, which is very unsatisfactory in war thunder.
1 Like
these are drop launches, we have seen rail launches clearly have the guidance begin twice as fast
Which is an “innacuracy”, aka what you’re complaining about.
the maneuverability being bad is based on nothing that we know of, gaijin doesnt say what they based the nerfs on, the reduced smoke motor isnt a thing, the seeker is as bad as the other missiles despite it being being an absulte brick so if they wanted it to be a long range niche missile they could at least give it that.
Probably not guidance towards the target though which is different from using the fins to stabilize the missile into a forwards trajectory. It’s not that the fins are still until 80ft (likely in both types of launches), it’s that they are only angled/used to keep the missile going straight for safety reasons and once out to 80ft it starts turning towards the targets intercept point.
there is at least one video where you can clearly see the missile steer off course onto a target, kizvy posted it into another thread.
What nerfs? i don’t remember any recent changes to the AIM-120?
You’re talking about this as if they change things just on a whim for balance, i do not think this is the case, they likely try their best to apply changes based on available sources and sometimes game mechanics probably gets in the way and they have to get creative to try to get around some limitations to mimic the IRL function.
Could you quote it here as well? Would be interesting to see :)
the normal r-77 thread has plenty of information about r-77-1
augusto 2024
what missile are you talking about? I can probably find the specific video you’re referring to