We’ve shown they were wrong about AMRAAM, AIM-54, and R-27 series. The only thing they are mostly correct about is the drag on the AIM-120C-5 and they found sufficient data to correct their performance of that missile after they had already added it to their game some time ago… not sure if it was corrected or not based on the new data but they are VERY slow to correct things in comparison to War Thunder.
Gaijin’s data for the R-27R/ER is based on primary information the DCS devs do not have access to, I’ve not looked at the DCS data but based on the past experiences I don’t think they should even be mentioned or as a footnote of any kind when discussing real world performance vs war thunder. This isn’t even relevant to this topic and I’m not sure why it was brought up.
Once again certain users are derailing a topic with nonsense (and if I were to guess, no sources)…
Cars use tires to change their direction, missiles use control surfaces.
Control surfaces work best between their optimal speeds instead of always working better at lower speeds. Car tires always work better at lower speeds.
I see that certain users are typing away whom I have blocked and have had a history of derailing these threads. I’d ask for the sources but there already exists a thread for the R-27 that would be far more appropriate in which I have shared most (if not all) available sources on the topic anyhow.
We should circle back to the Phoenix, then. It is okay to compare missiles… but the discussion should not gear itself towards other points of the discussion or continue feeding trolls unless you want to learn the same lesson I did and put 500+ comments not relevant to the thread here arguing with someone who cares nothing for the argument itself.
The person who made the wheel vs fin analogy makes incredulous claims all the time. Such as SARH missiles have no ‘seeker’. (A seeker is anything to looks for a signal… not just something that can produce its’ own signal)…
They often delete these comments later or edit them. This is what I was referring to. I’m on the same page as you regarding the argument I’d just like to push it back on course.
It does not “look around” for a signal. It’s an antenna that literally sits there. Once it’s stuck by a specific radio signal it guides to it.
LMFAO.
A seeker is actively looking for something independently. The sparrow can do nothing independently without some midcourse update and definitely needs a signal from the launch aircraft for terminal guidance.
The issue with SARHs is not because their “seeker” (antenna) is limited on receiving a signal lmfao as said below.
It’s because the signal path that travels from the launching aircraft to the target and then off to the missile is easily disrupted.
That is why they are phased out in favor of active radar missiles who have the ability to produce their own radio/microwave signals and bounce back directly to them and cut out the range and duration these signals must stay secure.
But this would not help in regard to determining lower altitudes and speeds launched going faster like at Mach 1.10.
Such speeds which we find ourselves flying on average at lower altitudes in game fighting at much closer ranges.
The above maybe absolutely correct in game. But does not necessarily mean that this particular performance means the missiles is not underperforming in other aspects.
The one with a ~110nm launch range I tested in game and it works.
What’s funny is that the radar is hard-coded and can’t actually detect anything beyond that range so the second I picked up the target I had to launch.
It is indeed all the bugs of the radar that is holding the phoenixes back, atleast for me.
Tws LOBL logic is nonsense, the tws target tracking logic is not working properly in many situations and the false elevation indicator issues are troubling.
I have lost a large amount of kills due to this issue, sometimes not being able to launch at all at my preferred target/targets.
