yeah gaijin for some reason seems to think US missile fins cant turn very far, and gives lots of them unrealistically low fin AOA
1 Like
“Americans are dumb. They only make stupid and weak missiles. USSR power. USSR underperforms. Buff Rafale. Nerf Eurofighter. The USAF never bought BOL”
- Gaijin probably
2 Likes
anyone do a bug report for the C-5 and C-7 being too heavy? i ran some tests on statshark and found the aim120C-5 could do much better off the rail if they removed 6kg from the full mass which that number was taken from the 2014 SAR report of current amraams issued by the originally DOD (Department Of Defence) now DOW (Department Of War)
2 Likes
@gszabi99 quick question regarding the “distFromCMToStab” value for missiles, is it accurate to interpret this as the moment arm for the missiles control surfaces, in meters?
probably
every other distance is in meters
Thats what i figure as well, if im right on what the line is and what the measurements are, the AIM-120’s fins are MASSIVELY nerfed by the wrong moment arm.
Nominal CG for the AIM-120 is 79.6in (2.022m), so if I’m right on what that value is in-game, the moment arm for the AIM-120’s is something in the ballpark of 5.9% what it should be…
For a more clear visualisation, what gaijin appears to have done is modelled the moment arm as the “X” distance in this diagram, instead of the correct “Y” distance.
1 Like
it could be distance from CM to the front fins which would be relevant for stability
but idk why there wouldnt also be one for the rear fins
Could be, but some napkin math puts it almost exactly as the distance from a theoretical centerpoint on the control fins to the centerline of the missile, so its suspicious. I wanna get to testing it but i forgot how to setup the custom mission to test :/
how do we start a petition to get the amraams more accurate, as far as i know bug reports has been accepted yet no changes for a year or so
I think so? It should be the distance between the centre of mass and the control fins, in metres.
1 Like
Yeah so if thats the case, its MASSIVELY wrong…
I’m pretty sure most missiles in-game are underperforming in this regard actually. It would explain why some missiles can only pull their stated max G-loads in hyper specific circumstances, and only for short periods of time.
Its kind of a funny mistake too, cuz its the type of mistake you’d see from a first year engineering student…
I think it is more likely that they have used the distance from centre of mass to the centre fins along the missile axis, rather than from the missile centre line to the centre of the fin.
Its possible, but then what value is used to define the moment arm of the actual control fins? The only thing I could possibly see would be “wingAreaMult” at 1.225, and that would still be wrong by ~0.775m, equivalent to the control fins only having ~61.25% of their control authority.
Better than the ~5.9% I previously discussed, but still massively nerfed…
Also, I dont think its a correct assumption in the first place (or gaijin flubbed their math)
Using the AIM-120A for this example cuz i actually have a diagram for it.
Warning: Math
Spoiler
- Bottom of the midbody fins starts at 65in (1.65m)
- Centroid of the midbody fins would be at 4in from the bottom of the fin → 1.75m from the bottom of the missile.
- Center point of the missile (assuming gaijin used it as their CoG in the event they did not have a value for the nominal CoG) would be at 1.83m
- Actual nominal CoG of the missile is at 2.022m
- Distance from the midbody fin centroid to the the geometric center of the missile is 0.08m
- Distance from the midbody fin centroid to the nominal CoG is 0.272m
- In-game distFromCmToStab value for the AIM-120A is 0.175, which matches neither of the above values
- Tailfin centroid is located at 6.4584in (0.16m) from the missile centerline
None of the potential distances, be it;
- Centroid of midbody fin to missiles geometric center (0.08m) (your suggestion)
- Centroid of midbody fin to missiles nominal CoG (0.272m) (your suggestion)
- Centroid of tailfin to missiles centerline (0.16m) (my suggestion)
Match the distFromCmToStab of 0.175 for the AIM-120A seen in-game, with the closest value found being what I suggested I believe gaijin might have done.
More notably, the distFromCmToStab of the AIM-120C-5 drops from the 0.175 seen on the AIM-120A, to 0.12m, despite the fact the missiles are identical in size, fin position, and nominal CoG position. The ONLY thing having been reduced that would be relevant in this case being the clipped fins having a reduced fin width.
So as far as I can tell, the best assumptions we have atm are:
- We are completely wrong in all our assumptions/suggestions regarding what “distFromCmToStab” actually represents
- My initial assumption is correct + an addendum of whoever did the centroid math for the missiles screwed their math up somewhere
This is why I actually want to test some custom missiles with this stuff, so I can see what changing “distFromCmToStab” would do to the missiles ability to turn.
1 Like
Does anyone know what the historical, real reason for the Aim-120’s HOBs pull being nerfed was for? And the C-5 being nerfed on the DEV?
1 Like
It was changed?
It went from having prenerf amraam level pull/delay to the current c5 stats
2 Likes
Likely old values were placeholder
1 Like
Yes, but the C-5 should have been a improvement to the AMRAAM A/B, which the prenerf C-5 was. But that makes more sense.
1 Like
artificial
only place ive seen a similar fin AOA value for amraam was someone calculating how much fin AOA it would need to pull 45-50 degrees of missile AOA (which it doesnt do in game)
2 Likes
Where are you getting this from? 120C hasn’t been touched (outside of FX) since june
no it hasn’t