9:25 I think
Well then, could you just do a shot at 39km, I’m curious.
Give me the full launch conditions so I can test the parameters. Do you want it to loft, if so how much? Because the lofting is very rudimentary in the game.
At start it says “T18”, closure rate is 518. Closure rate continues to increase to target thereafter, seems the parameters for time to target are dynamic in the video, as such a no-lofting hit time of 19s for a non-dynamic target seems reasonably within the expected performance imo.
-edit-
These tables determine the radar scopes max / min range and are irrelevant to the missiles’ actual performance in-game… I can adjust them to say whatever I want which doesn’t help me test the missile.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1161031417950634024/image.png?ex=6536d1c4&is=65245cc4&hm=43cd1081222b979753ce06dad0dfaa6667d488439180e6a7d9a4039aa6e30b83&
Parameters I gave you were Vc ~1020kt at peak. Then it drops as target dives to deck in a right turn, beams and notches. You can see on Vc. TTG is dynamic, once he foxes the ttg is delayed as thats the current ttg in the air. I have no idea if its in TWS or STT, but if its on TWS then track should hold till TAS+55kt. On STT, I would say track is lost as fighter is basically is on deck, same range bin imo.
I don’t know if no-loft can be said on this (9.6NM) case. I say it would, a small amount like in your video as amraams probably use DG as guidance
same parameters as the first shot. Loft, try 10°?
oh ok
The Turn and Run Range looks like a pretty interesting case to test the missile energy for fine tuning kinematics
It didn’t look like a lot but it was a 20+ degree loft in the video.
Also, testing using these kind of dynamic calculated launch zones doesn’t usually net accurate results imo, we’d need to look at legitimate charts to accurately find the performance. I think the fact that it’s within ballpark figures is a good sign.
Same as first one but extend distance to 39km?
Surface launched range against known target speed / velocity is probably the best but rear launch (chase) against a target at altitude 4-5km would be the best to figure how it will perform in-game.
damn, so it really was lacking initially.
yeah, try 20° loft instead of 10°(thought the loft you had was less lel) with the adjusting you did.
With what was done here. And what was done here to get this?
That will never come in near future and this is the probably the only case available at the moment. This DLZ info is quite rich.
I slightly increased the burn time (0.1s) and adjusted the CxK down by 0.05. I also turned off the loft since that’s an easy yes / no line parameter without having to remove a bunch of lines from the missile file.
I’ll test again with the increased range and also the same changes. (With loft this time)
1 Like
20° loft for a 9.6NM shot …seems quite alot no?
nvm
Lofting parameters in-game are rudimentary as I stated.
@MaMoran20 Time to target for the 39km test in those parameters was approximately 60s with the adjusted missile.
1 Like
fine tuning, the Rtr and the 9.6NM case would make as close as possible atm. Just lofting and guidance now. And defining how many Gs in the turn for Rtr case, will check if I can see anything tomorrow.
Thanks
1 Like
Well, we know the maximum launch range for subsonic launch aircraft (0.96 mach launch) against unknown target speed (presumably co-speed, or 0.9 mach) and co-altitude for max height of Sea Harrier was around 40 nautical miles. This lines up with my testing, showing a maximum range of around 75km in that scenario. (Hits at 75km in ~75-80s iirc).
Overall, it seems my custom missile file is close to the ballpark performance metrics of the real thing with the public data. Interested to see how it comes to the game.
I’m honestly quite surprised loft in-game isn’t modelled in a similar manner as time to gain for long range SARH’s. Seems extremely rudimentary and quite lazy tbh.
Regarding what would be an ideal loft, I think its more dependent on the range to target relative to the current max kinetic range of the missile, granted that’s just a logical guess rather than backed up by documentation.
For example, a very high loft trajectory may maximize kinetic energy at intercept, but would increase the time to target as well, giving the target more time to maneuver and avoid the missile. This would likely be optimal when the target is already close to the max aerodynamic range, where noticing the TWS launch is less likely, and what’s more important is maximizing energy at range.
A closer launch may loft less and take a much more direct route as the range would be insufficient to really gain good altitude anyways, and the target is much more of a threat to the launch aircraft.
There’s likely a set of guidance rules and sets of equations to determine optimal loft for each individual missile as well irl. A higher drag missile will likely favor lofting more aggressively to reduce drag, so will a long burn motor missile, as not only does drag decrease with altitude (due to decreased air density), but thrust of rocket motors INCREASE with altitude, and the %increase is proportional to the length of the motor burn as well.
This would explain why irl, the AIM-54 has been known to loft to altitudes as high as 103500ft to intercept a target flying at 50000ft from a 44000ft launch.
I dont think WT actually models differential rocket motor thrust based on altitudes, and we know for a fact they dont model base drag reduction from long burn motors either, so its questionnable as to if any missile which lofts ingame actually acheives realistic loft trajectories or peak performance.
That actually leads into a major concern I have in the near future with gaijin and their missile modeling; around what parameter will they base their missile modelling in the future when missiles become more varied and sophisticated?
The AIM-54 lofts aggressively to achieve huge ranges and speeds by leveraging low air density and its large and long burning motor, both of which benefit the increase in rocket motor thrust at higher alts.
The R-77 may achieve good ranges from high speed launches, but suffers massively from its grid fin design at subsonic/transonic launches, which would lead to it underperforming in typical WT scenarios.
The MBDA meteor lofts very little so as to maximize thrust from its ramjet engines, and varies said thrust to mitigate the effects of the targets evasive actions and maximize pK.
Those are just 3 examples, but are applicable to a whole host of future medium and long range BVRAAM’s for WT. I seriously believe the complexity of the missile models will have to be increased to be realistic, although I personally believe gaijin will take the easy way out and model things in a way in which there are clear winners and losers.
A great example of this “winners and losers” modelling are long motor burn missiles in WT. Missile diamonds appear within 10km range (aced crew) for missiles where the motor is still burning, so shorter burn missiles have a massive advantage in visibility, which improves their pK. This even has ramifications for low smoke motors like the AIM-9M, which should have a visibility advantage over something like the P3, but comes out with a disadvantage due to the longer motor burn and missile diamond.
It will likely be near impossible to model a more modern missile accurately in WT within the confines of gaijins current missile modeling. You may be able to fine tune for one specific scenario, but it by no means means that the missile would be accurate for all scenarios, or even the scenarios most commonly seen in WT matches (low alt low speed launches).
1 Like
For most missiles in-game (no more or less different than other missiles with boost or boost-sustain type solid rocket motors)… the discrepancy in performance from low and high altitude or close and medium range time to target it’s within 5-10% margin of error. Not a huge deal.
For missiles that loft, the lofting parameters are not explicitly stated so as long as it hits targets at prescribed ranges and speeds it should likely be performing as accurately as we need it to be.
I don’t really see the issue with how it’s being modeled currently, but I would welcome improvements over time.
tbh, I doubt the F-14 was ever meant to come out as early as it did. They just rushed it and more advanced missiles for the Top Gun promo. It would explain the deficiencies in it’s modeling and the fairly massive power creep with its introduction.
1 Like
I suppose we’ll have to see how the meta plays out, but considering the pretty significant time-to-target shifts from the lofting profile, I don’t see how they could hope to accurately model any of the lofting missiles without more advanced stuff.
Something like the Phoenix would be modeled for its 72.5NM max range, but to get that they’d have to either juice the snot out of the lofting profile or total delta V to beat the battery life.
If it lofts too aggressively it’ll have a dramatically longer time-to-target in medium range shots than it should. If it isn’t aggressive enough they’ll have to juice the thrust/delta V to get it to travel its maximum range in its battery life.
Also, it shouldn’t be that hard to implement, since like @MythicPi said, it should be a simple conversion of distance to angle. Recreate known shots with whatever formula and we’ll end up close enough.
When was that stated as the max range?
I think the way you described this, you may not understand how the lofting mechanism is done in-game.
That’s what they’ve done?
The F-14A wasnt powercreep at its introduction. It frankly baffles me ppl get that whole part of WT history so badly wrong.
The F-14A at launch was added at a time when the MiG-23MLD and J-7E had utterly ruined top tier air for months. The MLD in particular had been absolutely crushing all balance in air RB for about 8 months when the F-14A was added, and the J-7E had gotten the PL-5B “fix” which made it borderline god tier when matched to its FM, the F-14A was added as a balancing factors to those 2 nightmares.
As for its timing, I agree it was added to match Top Gun Maverick, but I disagree it was rushed. TGM was famously delayed MULTIPLE times. One of the specific dates was November 19th 2021.
This date is important as it roughly coincides with the release of the MiG-23MLD (Oct 28th), which went on to absolutely dominate top tier for 8 months with literally no answer from the US side until the F-14A. The F-14A was most likely supposed to be released alongside the MLD, but was delayed alongside TGM.
Regarding the F-14B though. It being added was just beyond stupid. Gaijins stated reason was the US needed a competant mixed attacker, but they;
- Refused to add any of the 3 TGP’s and dozens of different PGM’s to the F-4E
- Refused to add the F-111
- Refused to add a TT A-6E
The addition of the F-14B was lazy and idiotic. There was no reason to add it when they did, and they butchered the modelling of not only its weapons (the 7M is still nerfed into the ground as is the 54C) but the AN/AXX-1 TCS. Adding the F-14B (a notoriously poor aircraft in the ground attack role) for the role of TGP equipped ground attacker was just stupid, and the US TT could’ve gotten half a dozen different aircrafts instead.
As for if you’re arguing the 54C is nerfed into the ground for balance, the 54C is one of the worst missiles, if not flat out the worst missile you’ll find at top tier, and the R-27ER, which has been downright oppressive since its addition compared to all other radar missiles in-game, handedly beats it in almost all scenarios you’d see in WT currently.
This is also kind of wildly off topic for an AIM-120 discussion…
2 Likes
Yeah I don’t really, idk if its X degrees relative to missile or relative to target
Spoiler
Target = 990 mph, 50k feet
Missile travels 72.5nm
Target travels 37.5nm
72.5+37.5 = launch range of 110nm
Since its a target drone I assume it maintains course and speed
Target drone covers 43.15 standard miles from launch to impact, traveling at 990mph (.275 miles per second). That gives a time of (43.15 miles / .275 miles per second) 156.9 seconds from launch to impact. Assuming I didn’t fuck my math, that’s almost the missile’s known battery life of 160s, thus likely pretty close to the maximum range (Since it’s the longest range shot known to have been taken)
1 Like