Physics.
If the missile goes ballistic and has an apoapsis of 100,000 feet or 30,000 meters, the drag in this reigon is nonexistant for the speed the missile is traveling at, the loft trajectory will actually result in the missile accelerating slightly untill it reaches 12,000m again.
Top speed is not the primary issue, the issue is specifically the drag profile and loft profiles.
The missile currently accelerates short of its’ top speed and the drag is far too LOW currently. This is why it meets the expected charts in spite of the additional drag from higher altitudes that aren’t properly modeled as you said.
Currently, drag doesn’t decrease exponentially to almost zero as you’re stating - therefore the in-game model must account for that in the long range scenario (the one it is modeled after). The result is a missile with an absurdly low drag coefficient for what it is - and heavily overperforming at lower altitudes.
If they amend this issue and correct the missile, the best you’ll see is a nerf at lower altitudes and a slight increase in velocity by the time it reaches the target at altitudes well above what is ever encountered in the game due to map sizing.
TL;DR
Drag at high altitudes is too high, so the missiles’ drag has been adjusted far too low to account for this in the scenario it is modeled after. Fixing the atmospheric drag coefficients and the missile at the same time would result in nothing but nerfs for any practical use-case of the missile in the game. It would benefit only in scenarios above 45,000 feet and at very very long range launch conditions.
The biggest factor impacting loft performance is a proper loftTargetOmegaMax, which impacts how long the missile lofts and to some degree how steep it drops onto the target. The AIM-54’s were given a terrible loftTargetOmegaMax of 0.25, which is the lowest ingame. You can see substantial improvements in performance by just increasing the loftTargetOmegaMax on most missiles that loft.
To note regarding lofTargetOmegaMax, higher does not automatically mean better. Too high along with a very high loftAngle and the missile has an overly exaggerated loft, which is what the issue with the Derby/R-Darter is (they have a loftElevation of 30 deg and a loftTargetOmegaMax of 2.5)
Heres an example of the impact:
OM had its OmegaMax doubled
LE had its loftElevation doubled
TE had its targetElevation doubled
As can be seen, LE/TE barely have any impact on TTI/IV over the current in-game loft, while OM arrives sooner and at a higher velocity.
Also of note, we KNOW the 54C uses more optimized trajectory shaping than the 54A:
Any numbers discussed using the AIM-54A’s test shot numbers for AIM-54C performance are inherently wrong.
Yes, this is because the AIM-54 is configured to match a specific long range scenario. Interestingly, it still heavily overperforms at low altitude without needing such a optimized loft trajectory. Even with no loft trajectory, the missile still overperforms by as much as 20-25% ASL last I recall.
Thanks for showing us what the improved lofting code could do for the AIM-54… but adjusting it would throw off the performance by making it climb far too much for the long range scenario. It would result in a nerf in regards to drag or other metrics to maintain the correct performance in the current known scenario. You can’t see that because all you want to do is cry for buffs. You don’t even realize that what you are asking for would result in a net-nerf all around.
It is reasonable to ask that the AIM-54C have the improved lofting guidance in comparison to the AIM-54A. I do think that missile deserves some kind of buff at this point. At the very least they could add a low smoke motor.
I personally think they should do the DCS thing with AIM-54C. One with the Mk 47 Mod 0/1 motor and one with the Mk 60 motor. Two different versions of the missile for players to choose between long-range but high visibility or shorter range but low visibility. They could also do the same thing with the AIM-54A, and even throw in that AIM-54C+ version if they wanted to.
That being said, its a Phoenix, “shorter range” is still very long range.
The Mk47 mod 0 and Mk60 are practically identical in use and performance, there were very few Mk60 motors produced. They just wanted two sources capable of producing the motors.
DCS corrected this at some point, the motor performance is similar.
Ah. Maybe I’m thinking of the Mk47 Mod 1 then. I’m pretty sure that one is different.
We have no data on any possible propellant performance gains of the Mod 1. We do know 100% that it should be reduced smoke which hasn’t been fixed yet. Any update on reduced smoke motors for FOX-3s? @Gunjob
Faster traveling Phoenix can better utilize AoA of its fins and at closer ranges increases Pk, enemy will have less time to react.
Nothing yet.
That is the issue, it will not be faster at closer ranges.
I just watched a replay using my Phoenixes, from mach 3.5 in just 4.5 seconds it slowed down to Mach 2.2. This doesn’t seem right at all. It was at around 23k ft
I’ve seen some recent discussion about the state of balance regarding the AIM-54’s and their current BR placement and really believe that now, more than ever, would be a great time to properly model some of the differences between the A and C if gaijin’s been holding off on some of the stuff for “balance” reasons.
The A is, afaik, not supposed to be able to reconnect if it does not receive the “pitbull” command, and should effectively act as a SARH until that point. Afaik its otherwise largely correct in kinematics atleast to max range of its shots, but should also have its max G-load pushed up to 25g’s.
This would allow the 54A to be a bit more lethal in shorter range shots, but would lessen the quasi immunity offered by the missile at longer ranges by forcing the F-14A to guide the missile all the way to pitbull, which is more dangerous for it due to its dated RWR and ergonomic difficulties in WVR combat.
The 54C on the other could get a better seeker, the 25g overload, the directional warhead (if/when that implemented), and an improved loft profile as it very much should have, with the F-14B then being pushed up in BR as it realistically should (the F-14B should, all things considered, be more than 1 BR step above the F-14A, but was being held back by its lackluster armament and subpar avionics compared to other 4th gens). This would allow the F-14B to have the proverbial “bigger stick” with the improved lethality of the 54C at ranges while still remaining balanced due to its inferior avionics and size/fragility compared to the other 4th gen jets.
As for the reduced smoke motors, gaijin doesn’t seem to want to add them to longer range air to air missiles which we know have them, such as the AIM-120’s and MICA, so i think its generally fair to withhold it from the 54C until they decide to take that step, but only if the other known underperforming portions of the 54C are fixed to bring the missile in-line with the other fox 3’s.
These changes would allow something like the F-14A to remain around the 11.7 bracket where its avionics, ergonomics, and general weaponry are all relatively balanced while toning down the uncontested nature of having the only fox 3 at that BR by brining it more in line with what the 54A really is, which is (to my understanding) more of a quasi-fox 1/3 mix (only acts like a fox 3 once in pitbull range), and allow the F-14B to be pushed up to something like 12.7 (with a mostly fixed 54C and preferably some 9M’s to replace the 9L’s) where the ACTUAL fox 3’s (54C’s) and their (supposed but not currently modelled) improved performance over the A’s wouldn’t be oppressive in a downtier, while also finally bringing us closer to reality, instead of the current idiocy where the 54A is effectively better in nearly every way to the 54C despite predating it by ~20 years…
If they are gonna adjust the BR’s (which they probably should), they should do it right and model the missiles more correctly, instead of giving us another F-4F situation where the vehicle (or in this case, weapon systems) receive an arbitrary nerf to shoehorn it into a BR it doesnt belong in.
Also, need to fix loadout when using AIM-54.
F-14A and F-14B must have pylons with cooling mechanisms at stations 3/6 to cool the AIM-54.
That’s mean station 3/6 should be occupied when carrying Phoenix.
The current formula used for the 54 is wrong because as it has been said, the air density is wrong across the board. And it is because of that that missiles in general perform how they perform. So first the devs need to fix that and the remodel all missiles… (Not going to happen).
That being said, a mach 1, 40nm launch (pretty standard range) at 35k feet against a target flying low at mach 1 that doesnt maneuver much will work with some fiddling, but the missile is at like .7 mach… Its a basically a dead missile at that point xD…
I generally consider anything below M2.0 to be a “dead missile” since the warning time at pitbull range and ability of the missile to intercept a maneuvering target degrades too much beyond that point. As previous testing has shown, a simple adjustement to loft, which we know the 54C got compared to the 54A wouldnt change much/anything in close range shots, but would substantially improve their interception performance at longer ranges, also with minimal TTI changes.
As can be seen above, the difference in TTI between the in-game AIM-54C guidance code and the best guidance code I tested is less than 5 seconds at 80km, but the difference in impact velocity is ~M0.6, with the improved loft profiles ALL managing to retain impact velocities above Mach 2 (though barely).
ie: An adjustment to the guidance code, which we know the AIM-54C should have, would barely affect time to target at any range, but would make the 54C objectively more lethal at long ranges, with a lower pitbull-to-impact time and higher energy for terminal homing vs a maneuvering target.
(Also, do note this graph is for a M1.2 9km alt launch, in normal WT launch ranges the missile would likely not retain M2.0+ impact velocities quite that far)
where has it been said ? Genuinely curious, because as you pointed out, it would explain certain weird things
My main problem with the 54A and C is the F-14 radar is not reliable. Not in a “this radar has a bad doppler gate” sort of way, but it just straight up loses TWS lock for no reason sometimes. I think it’s even worse on the B because of the weird camera thing it has. If the AIM-54 was actually reliable at all ranges the lack of maneuverability would be less of an issue.
It was pointed out many times by MiG_23M and a couple of other ppl I dont remember. Just scroll up and you will find this being mentioned.
But they refuse to accept that the missile is wrong so… “its not a bug, its a feature” kind of thing XD
