Do you even know the actual composition of the 9M’s low smoke propellant vs the 65D’s propellant vs thr 54C’s propellant?
If you’re gauging this on missile size, then why was it ok for gaijin to give the 65D (300mm diameter) the EXACT same low smoke lines as the 9M(127mm diameter), but NOT the 54C(380mm diameter)?
Why was it ok for the 65D (which never even had a bug report regarding the reduced smoke motor and I’m not even sure if it ever actually HAD a reduced smoke motor) to retroactively receive the low smoke motor, but NOT the 54C, which had multiple bug reports accepted and passed to devs, and has multiple sources specifically stating it has a low smoke motor?
You’re literally just playing devils advocate, and in a really shitty way to boot.
Heres irl footage of 9M, 65D, and 54C btw, incase you wanted to bring up “but 54C has lots of smoke in test footage!!!” (Its contrails, even low smoke motors create contrails) and the 65D (which need I remind you GOT the low smoke motor the 54C didnt get ingame) actually produces substantial smoke despite relative low alt launches in the footage!
AIM-9M:
AGM-65D:
AIM-54C:
Finally, gameplay-wise, it makes most sense for the 54C to receive the low smoke motor. Its already handycapped into the dirt, with bad TWS/Datalink mechanics, 34% less max G pull than it should have, likely still subpar lofting code, a badly modelled and subpar seeker missing multiple features, and a MASSIVE RCS and absurd levels of contrail, coupled with a long burn time motor, WT spotting mechanics, and a literal RWR warning specifying you are locked, and the overbearing hypercrutch that is gaijins implementation of multipath making you need to be borderline AFK or braindead to actually be threatened by one ingame. Giving it a slight push in a positive (and realitic) direction, by literally just copy pasting 2 lines of code, would really not be some crazy task for the devs.
From this video the missile appears very smokey at a relatively low altitude, this seems like an argument the AGM-65D should have its smokeless motor removed (which is entirely reasonable as I dont believe AGM-65s ever changed motors between variants) might be worth reporting.
smokeless motors do produce smoke trails still at altitude but at low altitude they shouldn’t, and that video shows the 65D producing way more smoke than the 65D ingame.
also for seeing the difference between the AIM-9M smoke and AIM-54C smoke its best to find footage of launches at similar altitudes for comparing thats how its determined
These are AIM-9M, mis-stated as AIM-9X. They are no more / less smoky than those other missiles you’ve shown video of. Depends on atmospheric conditions and altitude, etc.
Would depend on if it had aluminum or not. Only way to be able to tell if it should or shouldn’t have a smoky trail in standard conditions. No aluminum = no trail at low alts unless specific circumstances warranted it.
Sure, I’ll get right on that, seeing as theres such a huge amount of test footage of AIM-9M and AIM-54C test firing that specify exact altitudes for us to compare the 2 🙄
Baseline ISP of a smokeless motor is 233s, for reduced smoke it is 239s, and for smoky exhaust it is 247. At this point in time, these would have been some of the highest average specific impulse of these types of motors.
We can actually presume that since the AGM-65D and AIM-9M motors were produced around the same time they’d have similar performance and aluminum content (as “reduced smoke” motors in the US almost always means zero aluminum). These use HTPB binders generally.
TL;DR
The AGM-65D and AIM-9M probably have similar content of aluminum and similar amount of smoke when launched in the same conditions.
I think AIM-9M has too little smoke currently in-game regardless.
Just as much evidence as gaijin and you have that the 65D has the same amount of smoke as the 9M
The 54C is confirmed to have a reduced smoke motor regardless, so the fact it produces as much smoke (if not more) than all the other non-low smoke motor missiles in WT means its wrong.
I think its more to do with the fact gaijan doesnt model the differences of smoke/contrails these motors produce at various different altitudes. The current ammount of smoke the 9M produces at sea level appears in line with the AH-1Z video but the problem is at higher altitudes it produces just as little smoke. Honestly might be worth putting in a suggestion for some variation in smoke at various altitudes especially since future BVRAAMs will have motors of similar tech.
I’m pretty sure the smoke effect is literally a .png at the moment. Considering how they handle contrails for aircraft, I think yet another rework is in order.
Just completed some more tests with players and yes I think you may actually be correct. Soft-locking targets in TWS appears to update the datalink guidance during midcourse. I have a video that is currently uploading, will post when it is done.
Two targets flying front aspect at co-altitude. I fire one AIM-54A at each of them respectively and lose the lock. Then they turn away to “fool” any inertial guidance. Then I reacquire soft-lock on each of them, alternating every second or so to continuously update guidance. Eventually both missiles score a kill. Very interesting indeed.
Now this isn’t how it works in reality, but it is interesting to know that the game logic is there. A better way to implement this (if Gaijin wanted to that is) would be to add a keybind to designate TWS targets that correspond to the missile fired (TWS target 1 = first missile fired, TWS 2 = 2nd missile, and so on).
Edit:
Same video in 1080p quality, dunno why the first exported in 720p…
As I said to MiG-23M I strongly doubt that video actually shows an AIM-9M (I can’t find any information on Denmark using the AIM-9M, and similar firings are all labelled as AIM-9Ls by official sources - that video is from some random YouTube channel).
The fact were still arguing “if” tge 54C has a reduced smoke motor, despite it being a widely documented fact jusr because some people cant figure out that contrails will occur at contrails altitudes is quite frankly simply mind boggling.
The bug reports have been accepted, the documentation was not only provided by players, but by gaijin technical moderators themselves. Its idiotic were even having this argument, nvm the fact that the devs keep dilly dallying on the subject
