9000m m1.2 vs m1.2 75km launch
The phoenix’s loft code has been changed here, and now its loft route is similar to aim120a.
Changed phoenix performs very well in BVR situations, and its speed drop rate during gliding is similar to the aim120a.The Phoenix hits the target 5 seconds earlier, and its terminal speed is 0.56 Mach faster.
Phoenix drag is currently low enough in the game (maybe even too low), but the lower flight path affects missile performance.
Out of curiosity, have you tried other loft codes, such as the Derby which lofts more aggressively? Or have you though of trying to use not only the AIM-120’s loft code, but also its time to gain code? I’m curious to know how the 54C would perform if it got the full guidanceAutopilot code from the AIM-120 or Derby, not just the loft code.
54C vs 120A guidance code:
Not sure if you seen Jaek’s video, but Derby’s loft code makes it arrive later and also has it overshooting targets, often missing it completely at longer ranges.
Hopefully will be different in June
The AIM-54 may not interact the same way with the Derby’s loft code simply due to its longer burn and higher drag. It should by all accounts work better with more aggressive loft than just about any missile in-game afaik (up to a point obviously).
There’s a reason why irl the missile has in some cases climbed as high as 103,500ft…
Also, as a sidenote, unless gszabi hasnt updated the datamine, or im misunderstanding @dark_claw 's post, the loft code provided to the 54C in his test is in some ways more aggressive than the derby loft code:
i keep hearing this missile got buffed. is it worthwhile taking it in sim now?
This isn’t true, the drag is too high. We know this rather simply because the missile can’t even achieve proper maximum speeds based on altitude in-game.
Speaking from experience, the AIM-54 has this nasty bug in sim where if you hit someone with it, they get sent back to hangar (from the shame of dying to such a bad missile or their anger to dying to something so “OP”, depends on the victims skill level)
I’d never really consider it “good” in sim, simply due to TWS bugs (particularly bad in sim last I checked), coupled with the fact that unless you do a lot of launches followed by RTB’s, you run the chance of getting ambushed by an enemy and either having to ditch the AIM-54 or fire it with minimal effect compared to something like an AIM-7M/R-27ER. It could be usable if it got some more QoL fixes such as getting its full maneuverability and more notably for sim, the low smoke motor (as most of the combat is at lower alts due to everyone trying to abuse multipath 24/7.
Its very good at clearing aerial objectives easily in sim though, but the fin AoA buff has nothing to do with that
To note, I still run it in sim, simply cuz its more fun to use imo, and its gameplay is unique. I do like doing weird stuff in sim though, like running hard ground strike missions vs convoys and stuff, so others experiences may vary.
loftElevation : missile loft flight elevation angle
loftAngleToAccelMult : missile pull-up using overload
The remaining two lines affect the trajectory. The smaller the loftTargetElevation and the larger the loftTargetOmegamax, the later the missile enters the dive and the larger the dive angle.
The derby loft code value is too high. The missile hits the target almost vertically when firing from long distance, which is very detrimental to the missile’s stable tracking of the target.At the same time, an excessively high trajectory will also cause the flight distance to be too long, and the missile’s hit time will be very late.
AIM-120A 178mm , end mass 101kg , sectional density 4.05 g/mm2
AIM-54C 380mm , end mass 293kg , sectional density 2.58 g/mm2
The sectional density of aim54c is much lower. and the aim120 also has a cleaner body and smaller wings. It is difficult to understand that the speed drop rates of the two missiles are similar.I am more willing to believe that there are some problems with the missile’s drag line and power setting.
Thrust and burn time is accurate, drag currently is too high as top speed is not met. It is extremely plain to see and understand this, if it does not meet your expectations perhaps there was an error in your process.
Time to target given can be more easily achieved with a faster missile without such a high loft, with an even higher impact speed.
Omega is usually used to denote angular velocity, I guess loftTargetOmegaMax means, when delta angle to target per second goes beyond the specified value then go into terminal phase. This is likely used in case target is flying too fast.
At 0.25 degrees per second and 20km to target, target has to fly ~87m/s perpendicular to the missile for it to go into terminal phase due to speed difference. If this is correct, then assuming target is flying at 340m/s, a 14.8 degree offset will yield ~87m/s perpendicular to the missile.
At 14.8 degrees, that translates to a max loft altitude of 5.28km, this will explain why Phoenix never wants to fly above ~6000m since it thinks target is too fast and it will miss the target if it climbs too high, thus it never performs the 35 degrees aggressive lofting when shooting down. Also angle to accel mult is low, it is not pulling into a climb fast enough. Perhaps loftAngleToAccelMult = 3 may help.
It was more out of curiousity to see how it might affect a missile with more energy.
I’d also be curious to see what might happen if you increase the loft angle to something like 45 deg, seeing as according to the NASA sim, that left the missile with a slightly lower peak Mach number, but over 100 seconds of Mach 3.0+ flight, or what might happen if you add the energy management code from the AMRAAM’s guidance autopilot I mentioned earlier alongside your adjusted loft code:
seeing as the AIM-54’s are likely to still be wasting energy during their trajectories currently as they’re cleared to use 100% of max G load immediately once control surfaces are unlocked in-game.
Thanks for testing it!
The erroneous NASA figures based on public data, the top speed is much higher as we’ve discovered since.
The aim54C can go over mach4?
If i launch a aim54C at 340m/s how fast it goes?
Missing some details on launch conditions for that question. You’re also better off stating Mach number at the desired altitude. For the most part, you can test this yourself in-game as well, just load a custom match with a single enemy bot or a friend, and just mimic your desired launch conditions, then use sensor view in the replay.
The reason I was asking for stuff from dark_claw is that I dont know how to make my own custom missions like he does for testing, so I cant test modified missiles.
In fact, a speed of 340mps at an altitude of over 10,000 meters is approximately M1.15. I think the phoenix launched at M1.15 can reach the M4 when launched above 14,000 meters.
Realistically speaking, for WT, I dont think testing above 10km alt or above M1.5 is particularly useful unless there’s a known test to try to compare it to, or if you’re trying to find the in-game limits of a missile.
Maps are simply too small and the F-14 simply doesn’t have the grunt in the engines to get above M1.5 in a reasonable amount of time.
I know I personally tested and mentioned in an earlier comment ( The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #388 by MythicPi ) that the peak Mach number I’ve been able to achieve with the AIM-54C is M4.42, launched at M2.0 12km alt vs a co-altitude target.
In a more reasonable (for WT maps) launch condition of M1.0 at 9000m vs a 8.3km target, the peak mach number was M3.02, and impact velocity was a measly M1.97 for a ~46km launch. Flight time was around 41 seconds.
This specific test is actually interesting as it shows just how influential a better loft profile would be for the AIM-54C, as your test with the modified AIM-54C loft at very similar launch conditions (M1.2 9km vs M1.0 9km) shows vastly improved kinematics (M2.26 impact velocity against a 75km launch vs M1.97 impact velocity against a 46km launch).
