Reports were getting denied due to sourcing planned capability, I made a new report: Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
They deny everything they find inconvenient, even though it was possible or realistically accruate.
Selective realism at its finest.
1 Like
OMG I’m testing AIM-54C+ in Dev and it’s awful, mach 1.3 high 9k6meter and lose track an AI target when it barely notch
After experimenting a LOT in StatShark and studying the spreadsheet of guided weaponry in-game stats made by data-miners, I can confidently say that the only way that the AIM-54C missiles can reach their realistic Mach 5.00 top speed is if they gave around 36% more engine thrust and they would most likely also need to reduce the AIM-54 drag coefficient by about 15% (to experience less drag in total).
But since giving it so much additional engine thrust would make little sense mathematically, they could use a higher estimate of the Mk47 thrust (14456 Newtons) together with a higher estimate of the total burn time (30 seconds) AND then the new vacuum missile thrust multiplier code could hopefully give it enough kick to finally get close to Mach 5
Rocket engines do experience some thrust variation depending on the atmospheric pressure, as lower atmospheric pressure will allow the exhaust gasses to accelerate more (resulting in more thrust).
Yeah idk what people are saying that the buff made it good, still ass at bvr
Its good at medium and short ranges now at the cost of rather doubtful long range performance. Fixes made it more consisted too
Balancing should be done with BR, not stats. If the better seeker is historical, let it exist… Don’t randomly gimp certain vehicles for “balance” that could be better achieved by a move up in BR :/
And I do also believe IRIAF should have R-27 replaced with R-73.
Honestly, I would like to see F-14A IRIAF lose all “doubtful” loadouts like R-27R, Fakour-90s, maybe A2A Hawks.
Limiting the weapon loadout to only the AIM-7E/E-2, AIM-9J/P, and AIM-54A might allow it to be moved to a lower BR than the F-14A Early.
The problem is that in a sense Gaijin have no idea what the Early part of the configuration would mean.
The F-14A theoretically if they were to adjust it to match the '74-'75 Cruise (Operation Frequent Wind) configuration, it would have the -9G/-9H & AIM-7E-2 for Air to Air duties. Also it would be a candidate for the addition of the ALR-23 IRSTS.
The current configuration of the Early (As per the '77 SAC) is like starting with the M1IP, instead of the baseline 105mm Abrams.
Also if you wanted to give it an edge there is the VTAS & AIM-95 too.
1 Like
I don’t think any jet with FOX-3s should be below the F-14A’s BR, like imagine having to fight AIM-54s in a Kfir C7 which only gets 4 Python 3’s at best, or any of the other 11.3s of which a fair few have only IR missiles. Not to mention how it’d ruin 11.7 because now they can face infinite amounts of Tomcats.
1 Like
Since when are these more doubtful than any other top-tier munition?
Maybe try again focusing on the ‘Shoot-Down: Front Aspect’ label? Directly tell them that the in-game label is wrong and should be changed to all-aspect so that they can’t nitpick.
No worries. There was a newer bug report on this subject that had already been accepted.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Yswc0CPiJoaE
1 Like