It has.
You can’t have both at 13,3 at the current state.
You quoted me comparing another F-14… to another F-14? The F-14D is better than the IRIAF.
They reduced the explosive mass because there was a bug report for it, and the sources in the report seem accurate. Still the inertia alone from a direct impact should have obliterated the su-30mkk
Because the main counter for a bvr kill right now isn’t manoeuvrability but being able to notch and chaff before the missile hits you, and given the same conditions the Fakour 90 will give you less time to do that. The aim-54 can be effective from more angles, but that requires more skill and planning.
Which is 13.3 like the premium Su-30s.
The Aim-54 needs to be fired from a very long distance and can only take down inattentive enemies or when fired from above, making multipath less effective. However, Fakour has a two-stage burn; the first stage has thrust nearly six times that of the Aim-54, and the second stage also has a very long burn time, making it much more effective at both close and long ranges than the AIM-54.
1 Like
Although the Aim54 has a better G-turn, its heavy weight and insufficient thrust have led to the enemy easily evading. It is too slow at close range. At long range, if the distance calculation is incorrect or the enemy changes course, it will definitely miss.
The behaviour of 54 is wrong currently. I searched a bit and it’s probably due to the game not modelling accurately the air density/drag for missiles above 12km alt. or something. The density of the air doesn’t drop in a linear way after a point , it drops massively.
That can affect more a missile with higher drag profile like AIM-54 , that uses sustained thrust, than a 120 that has way lower drag profile and way better power to weight ratio even with way less burn time , OR in the example of F90 the missile just overpowers the drag and breaks through mach numbers faster , losing to drag progressively but from a higher mach number .
For example , for a launch at 15km altitude AIM-54s CxK should be around 0,35 or 0,4 (assuming the missile has angles and doesn’t beeline anyway - beelining will be way lower but unrealistic as a behaviour).
When i changed this value and CyK to 1,2 in statshark it started producing more realistic results.
However those numbers are somewhat correct for the altitude i mentioned, if you drop the altitude at 5km with the same numbers , you’ll hit at 100km away targets with 2 mach+ the speed on impact. Totally unrealistic , because the value is wrong for 5km.
Well, what i would do in that scenario that i couldn’t use variable air density and drag etc. and had to hardcode it?
I’d make 3 or 4 different values depend on altitude and i tried to code the missile to have variable drag to mimic as possible the variable air density i can’t have.
However i’m not a programmer and i can’t really help with that.
1 Like
Reading the patch notes gave me the wrong impression regarding the improvements to engine performance and the rudders.
Still, the missile is powerful.
1 Like
Man hasn’t stopped playing it since it released I guess
But yeah that missile + radar combo is outright diabolical
F14D is perfect counter to SU33/SU27 at same br now sadly they made it premium ofc cause greed
until they move the SU33 or SU27 up it should stay 13.0
2 Likes
Little bit
mate they just dont notch lol
It still needs AIM 7Ps
that will still behave like a aim-7m
it should i dont see why it wouldnt while we have zero useble documents to give it AIM-7Ps right now due to the F14Ds manual being export restricted it can as far as i know
Not really but the AIM 7P2s would be a lot better for 13.0
1 Like
I find F-14B doing fine with full AIM-54C loadout.
the radar makes the D infinitely better due to its radar being a lot stronger in basically everyway
1 Like
Su-39 still needs its R-27s
1 Like