Part of the problem with this game… Cherry picking data to use and data to not use…
4 Likes
According to you about the same as a BF-109 but I don’t think those are known to fly at 100k feet and then dive on things.
What does that at all have anything to do with what I said? Did you not see the part where I showed you the AIM-9 series used the same motor from the 60s into today and updated only the propellant material once, maybe twice and added a TVC nozzle on the end?
It does at rMAX unless the battery dies or it hits something first.
The in-game missile top speed is too low, thus the fact that it hits the target in the exact amount of time specified for the maximum launch range scenario means that the deceleration after burnout is too slow. If the top speed is higher IRL and the same deceleration is kept, the missile will reach the target too quickly.
There is nothing to cherry pick. We can hardly even prove it should have a low smoke motor.
Semantics are annoying. Stop.
people dont want you to talk about their favorite missile overperforming lmao
all of you are showing no evidence for the contrary. show the proof or be quiet.
1 Like
My evidence is what started this baseless back and forth.
And saying the Aim-54 is “underperforming” is just a maliciously incorrect statement. You know that’s not true.
I tested the Sea Phoenix launch test and it performs well beyond what it was claimed to do because it is optimized for high altitude maximum range scenario… which will naturally increase total impulse and improve performance but Gaijin doesn’t model the dynamic thrust and burn time based on temp / pressure & alt.
3 Likes
the missile is indeed overperforming in some aspects and should be nerfed and some other values should be heightened as per earlier mentions to provide a more accurate flight profile for the missile
1 Like
No missile in-game will be correct in certain scenarios as they only optimize them for one or a couple. The Phoenix with its’ long burn time and only a few datapoints available was optimized for the high altitude and long range scenario. This considerably buffs the low alt performance.
The issue is that Gaijin needs to overhaul the missile models in the game with dynamic thrust and drag to overcome this limitation and model them accurately in all conditions.
1 Like
Yes. This is how all missiles work. The Phoenix is made for AtA launches and it’s being modeled after known AtA launches.
Exactly so I fail to see your point.
1 Like
Ha Ha, or in other words, you are clueless…
I chose to disregard your points as I cant see what an AIM9 has in common with a missile that is made to hit targets over 100nm… Im sure that the guidance algorithms were never changed over the course of 40+ years sure… But hey, gaijin has all the modern active radar missiles use better lofting profiles and whatnot… I guess the 90’s AMRAAM that was just that much better!!!
Have you considered the possibility it went even higher?
More sources “we cant trust” right ?
I also noticed you didnt touch on the Iranian missiles subject… Where is the concrete data on those missiles? Gaijin used Iranian Government - sponsored data, baked in with data of the US missiles and the result is a freaking disaster lol…
4 Likes
Yes, but in the current version of the game, there’s only one way of modeling missiles. Unless we get a whole missile rework, it only needs buffs.
would you like to tell me a rationale for your opinion of aim54 needing buffs in the “correct” game state
Have you scrolled up at all ?
1 Like
Clearly, stop asking questions with obvious answers
you didnt exactly bring evidence to your claims
you made claims but to rationalize it means to bring supporting evidence with it
When I mean up, I mean go to the start of the thread and scroll down… Everything there is to be posted, has pretty much already been posted
2 Likes
ive already read a bunch of your history and havent seen much of documentation or other source eligible information being posted
Because as per my last message, its already posted ( by many other people) lmao…
2 Likes
My rationale? Maybe because Grumman themselves state the missile should pull 25G. Maybe because the Aim-54C has a seeker similar to the Aim-120 but can’t track rear aspect and has no chaff/notch resistance. Maybe because the loft behaviors of the Pheonix are abysmal compared to real life. Maybe because the Aim-54C should be able to reach Mach 5, but it’s hard-capped ingame. Maybe you should try reading this forum page instead of just hating on the Phoenix.
1 Like
tbh i haven’t seen anything that was posted that supported your statements there have been posted the ever so being sent docs of test firings and what not and none of them really supported your claims