Ima be real, War Thunder will never be more realistic than DCS or Falcon BMS full stop until gaijin chooses to fully refactor how missiles work in general.
Remember, missiles in WT are functionally the same as torpedoes, yes the torpedoes launched from ships, along with SARH and ARH missiles being modified IR missile code, modified to mimick how each type of homing works.
To compare the spaghetti that is WT to functionally any other sim is a disservice to pretty much anything you compare it to.
War Thunder is not a sim, and yes it’s missiles are more realistic than DCS in a multitude of areas. It goes both ways, though. Let’s not pretend DCS is even remotely above war thunder as a flight sim since everyone wants to quote it for realism and yet the only focus they truly have is in making sure the buttons you click imitate what they do in real life.
DCS’ missile motor arrangements for the Phoenix are just plain goofy and almost solely based on the data put out by a forecast international magazine from the 90s. Their AIM-120 data looks like it was pulled off wikipedia for the most part. Their Mirage 2000 out-rates any other fighter in the game. The MiG-29 they have pulls obscene AoA and can easily do 16G turns on a whim. Anything they’ve modeled “accurately” was done after the fact and after ripping through the actual NATOPS (F-16, F-14 etc) and in some cases, sourcing that data illegally… lol
As for War Thunder, the missiles don’t NEED to be modeled down to the minute details. That’s how efficient code works, it imitates what it needs to for some semblance of realism and that’s enough. Anything “extra” is just unnecessary and overly complicated.
“efficient code” - “war thunder”
You can pick one, you cant have both, as I have already shown prior.
To that same end its already been made blatantly clear numerous times before this that you do not know what you are talking about in terms of BMS or DCS, instead carrying along what seems to be a rather large vendetta against both titles for unknown reasons.
You are after all somehow comparing a game that refused to add in lofting for almost a year and 3 months on a missile who’s primary flight characteristics relied solely on lofting to operate in it’s primary role, yet here you are saying somehow WT is even remotely more accurate than actual proper sims.
Come to think of it, we’ve come back to this exact issue more than a few times at this point, with nearly identical arguments pertaining to a multitude of subjects that have been proven moot multiple times now being brought up as fact once more.
No missiles DO need to be modeled down to minute details as thats what defines the actual differences between missiles IRL, you either arcadeify all of them like WT currently does, along with putting a venire of realism over them or actually model proper missile mechanics like BMS or DCS. The entire skyflash family is probably the best example of all of this, being functionally just AIM-7E-2s with no actual modeling of the benefits they have over their standard sparrow counterparts when they existed IRL because WT does not care about such small details.
“The issue is that what you are asking for from War Thunder is minute details that DO NOT MATTER in the long term for gameplay in an arcade game. We can’t pretend war thunder is a sim, it’s not. Nowhere has it ever been declared a “flight simulator”.”
Ok no I’m not even going to humor you anymore if you carelessly sweep your statements on the previous forum under the rug that easily, thank you for finally showing your true colors on this subject, you have fully proven to me that you do are not interested in good faith discourse.
The secondary source you cite says that the mk.60 is “functionally” the same.
The adjustments they’ve made on the linked patch notes has the missiles functioning pretty closely in final results. The mk.47 with the longer burn performs slightly better in short range engagements, and the mk.60 slightly better in very long range shots.
I’m curious what items you think they are so off base on, and whether that’s a function of poor research or ED’s failure to give Heatblur a custom API to properly implement the missile.
I know we’re focusing on getting an accurate version of this missile into WarThunder, but a lot of people have an impression that Heatblur’s implementation is pretty definitive. It might help if you pointed exactly where you think they are so off base and why.
will have a possibility of a changelog to change the burn time of aim-54A and its thrust, same as aim-54C, but with active seeker turn on if you don’t mid-course it?
And how works the ability to fire 6 phoenixes at 6 different targets at once?
I don’t know if it was shared before or not but I would like to note that the IRST (when “tracking” a target) can slave the CW antenna and guide the AIM-7E/F without the help of the AWG-9 radar having a track.
Source: Outsider’s view of the AWG-9 / Phoenix
This is from a redacted copy obtained through FOIA.
I was able to create a fully customizable AIM-54A Phoenix BLK file. I can change some values and record them if anyone desires.
I’ve done the same thing, ultimately does nothing for us because Gaijin adjusts thrust, burn time, and drag to meet the correct range figures on their own. They do not follow the exact numbers from sources regarding thrust and burn time so long as they can properly replicate the flight performance of the missile.
Pls when then Will fix this inconvenient bug?
And the really shitty war thunder’s radar ‘feature’ of tracking switching to a launched missile in TWS
Actually, I think this is not bad. DCS Studio once used the “most accurate” data to make a completely incorrect missile.
Their AIM-120 and AIM-54 are still incorrect, despite more accurate data that is currently available.
Regarding my propellant weight report…
Outsider’s view of the AWG-9 / Phoenix document states the full-up and empty weights but knowing the actual weight of the propellant from other documents suggests that the information listed in outsider’s view is wrong. Either the pre-launch weight is incorrect, or the post-burn weight is incorrect. It is after all, a document focused on the discussion of what official sources are saying about the missile, how they differ, and what information is supposed to have been classified. I suspect the pre-launch weight of the AIM-54 is 12 pounds too heavy, and the post-burn weight is correct.
The AIM-54C however is still 100% wrong. That missile needs some love and I’m still very surprised it hasn’t been adjusted yet. I suspect big changes for it once other fox-3s start coming to the game.
So, what is right and wrong about we have about of aim-54 or need to search? lets make a list
aim-54A mk47 engine
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
Aim-54A mk 60 engine
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some different feature-???
aim-54C
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some differential feature-???
aim-54C eccm/sealed- (possible f-14D addition)
weight of engine-???
engine thrust-???
burn time-???
some guidance proprieties
radar seeker range-???
how much need the missile to shift to the active seeker turn on if you abandon it?-???
resistance of ecm-???
how much of altitude can max loft-???
how good hit low-level targets-???
some differential features-???
We have most of that information. There are only small discrepancies with AIM-54A. AIM-54C is mostly incorrect.
If you agree let give a force to go
and usa can also receive the VTAS III (AN/AVG-8B) hmd, the issue is, what about other countries?
I tested the phoenixes a lot. Based on my experience, Gaijin coded the lofting trajectory in a way to allow the missile just to reach the target, instead of maximizing the energy to impact.
When the Aim-54A was buffed in the lofting and autopilot, I tested it with one of my friend. I shooted the missile from 100km (Radar can’t see further, limited by game detection ranges), and it lofted at about 15km Altitude (shooted it at mach 1, 8km altitude). My friend didn’t manouvre and got hit everytime. I tried again this scenario but this time I shooted from 50km away. The missile didn’t loft at all and reached my friend with the same energy of the 100km shot.
I have to admit, my knowledge of the Aim-54 flight attitude is limited to DCS ':). I know that that flight model is wrong in some way but it just make more sense than the one in war thunder. Can’t wait to see the Aim-54 capabilities when gaijin will maximize the energy to impact.
@MiG_23M I think you are right, Gaijin will probably buff it the moment other fox-3s are introduced
