You aren’t even playing devils’ advocate. You’re once again making it appear as though I said things that I did not.
I did not ask for the Phoenix to be nerfed, I said to expect one if you want change. If you want the missile to be more realistic… the maximum range will likely be reduced. If it follows the trend of every other missile in the game it will be optimized for lower altitude scenarios than it currently is.
Also shows the AIM-120’s loft profile in-game to be incorrect
The “altitude adjusted thrust” shown to be completely wrong with not just one, but a multitude of assumed and erroneous variables on top of the fact that it is double dipping already and confirmed not to be the case because the missile already matches known data solely for high altitude while overperforming in low altitude conditions.
@Fireball_2020 @MiG_23M Can you guys provide any data that claim otherwise? I could not find anything in regard to the A/B model that supports the ranges you are talking about.
Again for the sake of clarity, I am talking about realistic engagements to what I mean by that I have provided an example of. (Mach 2 launch at another Mach 2 target is not realistic at all)
Non-manoeuvring Targets
Launch Aircraft: 15,000 ft / Mach 0.8
Target Aircraft: 500 ft / Mach 0.76
Expected Launch Range: 64 km
Current ingame launch range: 54 km
Launch Aircraft: 5,000 ft / Mach 0.9
Target Aircraft: 500 ft / Mach 0.9
Expected Launch Range: 57.5 km
Current ingame launch range: 52.5 km
Is that planned to be adjusted?
Still in limbo at the minute, I might nudge it.
I see people talking about the 54 getting further nerfed, but would this not require a improvement given the in game launch range is inferior to the expected launch range in both situations by a fair margin?
Those are for AIM-120, but if you have data that the AIM-54 is underperforming feel free to share the situations & testing you’ve conducted.
So far, the AIM-54 meets the long range high alt test scenario, hits targets during the high-G maneuver scenario, and severely overperforms in the Sea Phoenix scenario.
Those are AIM-120A/B LSZ’s not AIM-54
Ah I see, was inferring that it was about the AIM-54s given, you know, this is the AIM-54 thread.
The only person here that seems to actually be discussing the missile in question’s performance is MyhticPi and SE_8749236.
I don’t know if this is your passive aggressive way of saying that people are being off-topic, but it should be noted that even Mythic and SE were talking about AIM-120s too because the topic for the last day or so has been whether or not AIM-120s should outrange Phoenix.
No this goes pretty much all the way back to the start of June in this thread, pretty much the moment someone posts about the 54 people come out of the woodwork talking about other ARHes and so on, with the few people within the thread actually talking about the 54 having to deflect comments and statements about said other ARHes on the regular, lest it just becomes a “what missile can we replace the AIM-54 with because it just cant be implemented effectively” thread.
It does seem some people are dead set on making sure the AIM-54C remains as trash as it is in-game forever and actively work against any improvements or effective discussion on the subject.
They’re angry that my points are valid and I can show the AIM-54 is overperforming in the areas that they’re trying to buff it. Best to ignore those types of comments and continue posting the facts.
…
Now you are just telling lies. In every reply of mine to you, I always actively acknowledged that the Sea Phoenix test is valid and in game Phoenix is clearly over performing at sea level.
My point trying to get across is Phoenix’s thrust is underperforming at high altitude above 10,000m, where you constantly refuses and simply repeat “it can hit the 200km target as stated in the doc”, yes everything you’ve said is true (once again, I am not denying), but you are actively ignoring the issue of underperforming thrust at higher altitude above 10,000m.
Yes, I fully understand that your point is totally valid if you ignore all of my points. But if this is what you want, what’s the point of communicating with you?
The other issue you’ve ignored was there are multiple trajectory and speed profile where time to impact can remain the same. The only time you’ve direct responded to this concern was something like assuming Aim-54 Phoenix has better loft profile than modern missile is unreasonable, despite others have already brought up that the battery may be the limiting factor of 200km launch range, which the missile may have more energy left but can no longer function due to dead battery.
You are the one clearly being angry, evasive, ignorant and disrespectful to others comment by not reading carefully. Let alone understanding other’s point of view.
Thrust values are likely for 45,000 feet and are accurate.
The whole idea that the thrust values given are for sea level is absurd. You went on a rant about ignoring points but you keep ignoring that one. Mythics erroneous math based on a metric ton of assumptions doesn’t validify his equally absurd claims.
Your point which you claim I supposedly ignored. This clearly shows you didn’t bother to read my post.
This line is literally in the first post I replied to you two days ago, when this discussion started.
If you don’t like to read my posts, just say TLDR and I’m fine with that. Just don’t pretend you respected others when you didn’t since that generates miscommunication. I’ve spent hours to read your post over and over again to make sure I understand you correctly, I doubt you even finished reading it once.
