That violates the very meaning if a “sustain-only” booster design. The high altitude and long burn are specifically designed to reduce drag and increase average velocity to target, improving end game kinematics. Without lofting, the AIM-54 doesn’t come down on target from higher angles and speeds. Unless the target it at unreasonably short range (active from launch)… it should loft. The maps are plenty large enough to utilize the Phoenix to it’s fullest potential (as far as high pK on target)…
1 Like
Unfortunately I have to disagree, by the time you increase your altitude in a F-14, gain speed and manage to get lock on a real player there is zero form of lofting since you’re already within 20km. The only “coming down on targets” aspect is player input (them climbing) and only is effective in long range engagement which we still lack.
The AIM-54 has absolutely zero need to loft for a 15km kill. This addition should only effect operation maps like Kabul (lowest).
I have rarely still had a Phoenix attached to my airframe when launching from 10km+ altitude at a time when targets where closer than 30km. Clearly, rushing straight into the battle to launch the Phoenix is not your best use of them.
1 Like
Here pilot says it wouldn’t loft for short range engagements, and they would fire at a maneuvering target at 20-30 miles because long burn time meant the missile would burn all the way to the target
20-30 miles isn’t “short range”. In fact, they often would launch at around 40 miles maximum at lower intercepts against fighter sized targets.
1 Like
I’m assuming gaijin once again couldn’t be bothered to add the smokeless motor to the 54C despite smokeless motors becoming a thing this update with missiles such as the AIM-9M in the video below?
2 Likes
Correct, and no. They didn’t add the reduced smoke motor to the AIM-54 and smokeless motors did not come this update.
@DSplayer @Gunjob not sure who can fix this but can the this AIM-54 post have the Aircraft tag for the added to it?
Sorted
1 Like
Much appreciated. Any idea why gaijin didn’t give the 54C the smokeless motor like the 9M or 65D btw? Theres been multiple bug reports about it since it was added so its weird it didnt get it…
1 Like
Hopefully an ‘its fixed’ with the G-force changes, motor, and anything else that’s wrong
1 Like
Current problems with the 54C in-game according to current info:
- Max G overload too low (17G, should be 25G, 32% nerf)
- Missing dogfight mode
- Unable to hit targets at low alt (much too susceptible to multipath)
- Hard time dealing with multiple nearby targets
- Incapable of tracking beam aspect targets
- Missing NCTR and therefore more susceptible to being decoyed
- Missing smokeless motor
I’m also almost 100% certain the AIM-54C should be able to reliably track helicopters, seeing as it can track beaming targets and has NCTR, but I have no clear cut documents proving that specific capability atm.
As it currently stands in-game, AIM-54C’s are just heavier AIM-54A’s with slightly more reliable launch and leave ability against AFK targets
9 Likes
Reduced smoke, not smokeless motor.
1 Like
never getting fixed.
it can’t track notching targets if thats what you mean, if you arent close to the notch it seems to track ok from what ive seen
Something is very VERY wrong with the AIM-54C this update. I’ve watched it sail past head on targets at any and all altitudes. It can’t hit shit anymore.
I’ve gone from a steady 50-75% hit rate down to hitting 3 in 20+ games, 2 of which only were “hits” not even crits
5 Likes
Highly likely this Firebee drone was eqipped with reflectors to give it enormous RCS.
Normal practice if you want to test everything, but not detection range.
Still haven’t gotten a response to certain concerns for the AIM-54. Mythic has made several lists already. Are you able to respond to these?
If there is information missing, or not sufficient sources… or perhaps another reason? Why hasn’t the AIM-54 series been fixed?
1 Like
No idea how “Dogfight mode” can make AIM-54 a dogfight-capable missile with its slow acceleration.
In the game multi-path effect is the same for all types of surface. IRL it is different and creates more random effect. We can make it missile-dependent (beam width e.t.c.) later.
All CW missiles have the same problem: targets with close radial speed are not separated as long as special signals like FM are used, but they have their own disadvantages. Using HPRF (giving 1-2 km unambigious range) make the problem a little bit less severe, but not much.
How?! If the target is above (>7 deg) the horizon notching doesn’t work against all CW SARH missiles and against AIM-54. Below - it works against all.
Having NCTR anboard missile seeker doesn’t look realistic, it may be someting else.
Missile cant hit a target under 95m in-game.
Chaff clouds dont look like planes in a signal return… same as flares dont look like a plane in an IIR seeker.
I wouldn’t trust a word that guy says any more than id trust Putin, hence why he’s perma-blocked for me.
Its honestly getting fking infuriating at this point. Some of these bugs could easily be fixed with as you said, simple copy pastes, or even like 2 key presses, but they take YEARS to change, and then you get just the most back-breakingly stupid crap as replies to why they arent doing it.
1 Like