Probably better suited as a suggestion.
Like in the suggestion post section? I guess i can try that, not sure how well that’ll work though. All I’ve got is a document saying the 54C got “improved trajectory shaping” and my own testing. Ill give it a shot tho.
Posted this in the suggestion section at Gunjobs recommendation, also posting it here, since I figure it will likely get deleted by the suggestion moderators and some of you might be interested on discussing it anyways:
With the advent of modern high performance fox 3’s to the game, I believe its a great time to revisit the AIM-54C. For those who don’t know, the current AIM-54C seen in-game is a near complete downgrade to the AIM-54A that precedes it, being heavier and having a smaller warhead, making it an objectively less lethal missile than its predecessor.
One thing that remains largely unchanged between both variants in-game though is the guidance section of the missile. This is despite the fact that it is known the AIM-54C has an all new WGU-11/B digital guidance section and WCU-7/B control section.
I recently found a paper regarding a Russian generals analysis of the AIM-54C back around the time it was revealed:
Spoiler
This source states a few things, but relevant to the missile guidance, it states:
- AIM-54A was considered inadequate vs highly maneuverable targets at high altitudes by the US
- AIM-54A was considered inadequate against very low altitude targets by the US
- AIM-54A was considered inadequate vs groups of targets that were tightly packed (stream raid) by the US
- New inertial guidance system, modeled in-game by reduced inertial guidance drift speed being dropped from 10 → 2 (unit of measurement is unclear, likely m/s?))
- More complex and optimized trajectories permitted, improving performance vs high altitude targets that are actively defending when compared to the AIM-54A (not modeled in-game, 54A and 54C loft trajectories and autopilots are copy pastes)
Despite this, we do not have hard data regarding the AIM-54C’s trajectory shaping characteristics, and therefore cant directly bug report it to my understanding.
Fortunately, I have done some extensive testing of various custom guidance codes for the AIM-54C, the results of which can be seen below:
2 Things are immediately obvious:
- Addition of an energy management section of code, as seen on Every missile from the AIM-7F and onwards has a mild positive effect on the trajectory, likely due to smoothing out the inputs, particularly at range.
- Modification of the guidance code can have a significant positive effect on the missiles time to target and impact velocity, particularly at longer ranges.
My suggestion is to change the guidance code of the AIM-54C so as to offer an improvement in flight characteristics over the AIM-54A while remaining accurate to the missiles stats.
The code I suggest is the MP3 guidance code seen in the chart above, as displayed below:
This would allow the AIM-54C to actually represent an improvement over the AIM-54A in-game and improve its performance at range without any notable effects on short to mid range performance, and give it a notable long range niche when compared to the other Fox 3’s and the R-27ER, which is specifically what the missile is designed to do in real life.
Would you like to see a guidance code improvement for the AIM-54C now that more advanced Fox 3’s are being added?
- Yes!
- No…
0
voters
Which guidance code do you think it should use?
- In-game one
- Energy management only (EM)
- Improved loft (IMPL)
- MP
- MP2
- MP3
- Something else (drop your own guidance code suggestion in the comments)
0
voters
All guidance codes for reference:
In-game AIM-54C:
EM:
IMPL (Dark_claw’s loft code):
MP:
MP2:
MP3:
3 Likes
That’s hardly an analysis… that’s all just written on western press
3 Likes
11 Likes
Translation of western magazines for russian public won’t help you improve anything. You could just open Jane’s at this point.
2 Likes
Had i thought about it sooner, i wouldve posted that in the dev server discussion, seeing as it seems the devs actually look at that unlike everything else
2 Likes
We must Need talk about of the proper engine booster, in fact the aim54C and aim54C eccm/sealed, both are sealed your engines in a proper vaccum pod to conserve the thrust.
Anyone know what the heck is this 🤣🤣
Bro use Desmos or something similar for graphing. You dont need to draw it on paper.
You can check his previous messages, those were understandable. This is definitely not translation issue. The snail probably did something to this guy.
1 Like
i vote to get rid of the insane drag the missile has. It cant even hit the speeds it was supposed to and as soon as the motor runs out, it slows down as if it had a paracute deployed…
8 Likes
iirc it slowed down less than other new missiles added recently
Was looking though the catalog for *Hughes Missile Systems Co* Patents, for Stinger related patents (and cross referencing Patent number quoted in the Seeker’s patent) and happened across this one, I think it might be for the Standard Missile, but it provides an overview of how the Directed warhead as used by the AIM-54C & AIM-120 may work.
2 Likes
Cool finding, but im not sure its related to the AIM-54C’s directional warhead. There were quite a few types of early directional warheads from the sounds of it, The AIM-54C’s likely uses something similar to what’s described below. Its likely using initiator charges to impart some direction to the blast, as seen below:
1 Like
4 Likes
I cant speak for the new missiles but if thats the case then I really wont bother grinding them…
Yeah, I haven’t tried the update yet but from what I’ve seen the aim-54 will still have a role as long range arh missile. The aim-120A especially seems to have a rather short range.
It’s something I guess?
This missile seems to have too much drag and overestimate the target path as of now. I need to play a bit more with them to see how they perform now. But it definitely feels much better already
The numbers that i put and values are exactaly to improve the drag, just see my last e-mails