Honestly, we need to fix the Aim 54 and get maybe the F15N sea eagle as an evant vehicle. It could carry the Aim 7MH and the Aim 54C or the F14D
It never existed, they made small model mockups for it but iirc realized that the process of navalizing the F-15 would lead to it losing most/all of its performance advantages over the F-14.
The lofting code for fox-3 is new and in test. So that’s why its not on a missile in production.
I think i may have explained myself poorly.
The loft code has not changed in form or function with the new fox 3’s, the values just make more sense, so the missiles actually loft. As can be seen above, all that was changed to gain that performance improvement was 3 values out of 4 that define the loft profile of a missile in WT. The exact code used for the modified loft profile was literally provided. This isnt groundbreaking stuff…
There is no difference in the loft code besides the values used, and the timetogain code is already on MANY missiles in-game, its just oddly not on any of the AIM-54’s, and I’m trying to figure out what the justification for that is.
As I’ve explained previously, the loft code in WT is OLD, and many ground attack weapons also have loft code, the timetogain code is also old, with it being implemented with the AIM-7F, which pre-dates the AIM-54A/C in-game. The AIM-54’s just “happen” to have some of the worst values set for its loft profile, which makes it barely loft, and the energy management code is entirely missing…
Not exactly “new and in testing” when all the code im asking about is almost 3 years old and seen on dozens of weapons already in-game…
It seems questionable at best that the missile which would be able to best take advantage of lofting, and whose primary role is long range interception has the worst loft code and literally no energy management code.
3 Likes
Testing by others doesn’t show such a large improvement in performance with slightly higher loft angles.
Peak velocity went up by 0.1 mach, impact speed went up by 0.05 mach… The conditions are given and that is comparing the current loft angle to 35°…
@Gunjob I think Mythic is exaggerating or overstating issues again. If he wanted to make a report I’m sure he could, but idk if it is worth the effort to keep pinging Stepanovich and tech mods all the time for these same non-issues.
Oh, and it doesn’t matter at all if target is a much lower alt.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/955829235493273680/1222206986343415818/image-73.png?ex=66155ff5&is=6602eaf5&hm=5629699e3e81a3d971458e01c58efcc6136a1ae3e575da8643b5fcb704e01de0&
F16AJ never existed
And shouldnt have been added, whats your point? Also, the AJ is more of a real plane than the F-15N
1 Like
There are differences with the data that Mythic was basing things off and either of the table(s) you have supplied, so is it at all surprising that they have somewhat different results?
They have different ranges(75 vs 80km), launch speeds(Vc of 2.4M vs 2.1) and Altitudes between ((9km vs 6km Co-altitude, & LD) every set.
And as such they will be impacted by their Autopilot coefficients and drag constants differently , let alone if they were adjusted or not.
I don’t know, does a TTK delta of; 0.3 vs 2 seconds not make a massive difference? Let alone the TTK being reduced by more than 10 seconds? as per your table(s)?
2 Likes
Do you want another strike aircraft as an event reward?
Not like strike aircrafts are the only thing there are prototypes of, its just because gaijins lazy and likes reusing models for “event rewards”. They could add the F-111B and it would be a cool event vehicle if they fixed the AIM-54’s a bit more.
Also, the F-15N and strike aircraft rewards are pretty off topic for an AIM-54 thread
3 Likes
The time to kill difference was only so large when comparing to the 0° loft edit, the normal ~17° loft exhibits very similar performance to the 35° loft.
Please read the charts properly and don’t reply for Mythic. He can just stop pretending he’s blocked me and participate directly.
Of course the testing done has different results - it isn’t aimed towards making the AIM-54 look as though it is underperforming. He’s clawing for things that he thinks will make a difference and they won’t. It’s actively stirring up drama without good reason.
I don’t think 2s and 0.05 mach higher speed at the end of the engagement is going to be noticeable, since 80km is already a stretch for the use-case of the missile. You’d want it much closer to peak speed to maintain maneuverability… Which is at 30s or so (right at end of burn).
It was the 9km table vs results from;
which Mythic had requested that they be expanded on, and so likely what the subsequent position(s) were based off.
I have? The fact that various properties are not similar limit the potential to draw conclusions based on both of the charts that were presented.
It’s not that it’s underperforming, but non-optimal and thus SSPk / terminal performance could be potentially improved by adjusting the numbers especially considering we lack detail for the actual lofting schedule / shaped trajectory methods that the AIM-54 specifically employs.
Though if it was anything like the Maverick, pulling 3~4G vertically until 20 / 16 degrees of vertical seeker angle was achieved and held until impact would be interesting to see if it could be made work.
Considering that maximum ranges for the AIM-54 are listed as 52 / 63 nmi [96, 115km], 80 km is somewhat close to the listed maximum range or a multiple release, its not completely without merit.
As any missile with a complex autopilot implementation nailing down the root cause of issues is difficult at best, as the potential to isolate issues and work backwards to suggest improvements can have knock-on impacts elsewhere, which would need to be considered.
Depends how aggressive the loft angle and the details of any potential trajectory shaping constraints are, since with any induced super-elevation effective Net thrust is reduced, due to gravity, and assuming a TWR <1 there will be some profiles where the peak speed is not at end of burn, let alone the impact of non-constant propellant burn.
I’m sure that the details of said impact on optimal terminal performance (range) vs loft angle could be compiled for various launch conditions, but it would be significant work to map all conditions even if interpolation was used to find the relevant points of inflection.
The place to start would be to figure out under what conditions the missile’s G-limit is reached.
8 Likes
This wouldn’t be a useful situation for comparison to the game. They want enhanced loft, increasing loft angle won’t do that as shown.
I take it from the fact you’re arguing with someone I have blocked that MiG_23M is disagreeing with the tests done by @dark_claw and hasnt even bothered to properly replicate the test, and possibly not even the changes to the loft profiles code provided by Dark_Claw?
Pretty typical of him to perform improper tests then draw conclusions to match his beliefs. Its because of that type of intellectual dishonesty and general attitude I dont interact with the guy anymore.
5 Likes
You can just reply, they can see that you’ve read my posts.
9km co-alt with high launch speeds yielded a 2s sooner time to target and 0.5 mach higher end-game velocity.
In the much more realistic scenarios I provided, there was no significant improvement… 0.05 higher mach when hitting target…And it gets worse as you make the scenario more realistic for an air RB match. If you launch at a low alt target from high alt and reasonable speed line 1-1.2 mach, missile doesn’t gain any advantage with the higher loft angle.
You’re still exaggerating issues but you’re unwilling to run your own tests or make a report… I think we are all tired of it.
Frankly, I find myself agreeing to MiG_23M’s observations based on bug reports he does. I disagree with his opinion somewhat when it comes to lofting and higher alt TTK, but the referenced test was also done at impractical ranges (80km) so I can see why he says that’s ultimately pointless. He has also constantly advocated for fixes that improve the missile such as reducing the drag where practical, so from my point of view I find the lack of your interaction of him quite odd.
3 Likes
80km range and 9,000 meters in altitude which is unrealistic in-game yeah. Any changes to loft in the Phoenix won’t yield game impact differences unless much bigger maps is advocated for that would allow the F-14 to stretch its legs which I maintain is the biggest hindrance to the Phoenix outside of its drag.
2 Likes
The lack of big enough maps is an issue, yeah. As of current the practical range is 30-35km for a target at low alt, which is already quite close when you have to support them. I still don’t like shooting at higher alt opponents since it loses lock quite easily, otherwise I would use it more against high fliers.
2 Likes
Maybe I’m missing the context since I don’t read this thread often, I thought the actual maximum ranges are 200km irl?
1 Like
75km range for a 9km alt launch at Mach 1.2 isnt exactly unrealistic. Those are launch conditions that could easily be acheived in-game, particularly on the EC sized maps, though you would likely launch from closer in to maximize pK.
The fact the impact point chosen by the tester was 75km doesnt change the fact that modifying 3 values in the loft code (loftElevation 17.5 → 35, loftTargetElevation -7.75 → -15, loftTargetOmegaMax 0.25 → 1.0) increased impact velocity by 36.1% out at 75km.
Its entirely possible that similar gains in impact velocity can be gained at “more realistic” ranges typically seen in WT as well. As I’ve previously pointed out, the modified loft code used in Dark_Claws test had a higher impact velocity from a 75km shot than a test I’d done previously with almost the exact same launch conditions, but against a 46km target: The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #1279 by MythicPi
This would indicate that by simply modifying 3 values in the loft code, the AIM-54 can gain something in the ballpark of ~63% effective range when compared to a “typical” WT AIM-54 shot, which is a MASSIVE increase. Obviously theres variance in how much the loft will help depending on target range and the likes, but we’ve already got a few datapoints compairing current loft code AIM-54C’s to improved loft code AIM-54C’s and the performance differences are pretty obvious.
I’d personally test it at varied ranges and with more varied changes to the loft code, particularly since Dark_Claw had the decency to actually explain what all of the 4 loft variable actually do (functionally atleast), but I dont actually know how to make custom missiles, so I have to depend on the occaisional forum-goer that does know how and ia generous enough to test.
1 Like