What can be tried is to integrate the green curve to find the distance travelled. A rough curve can be set. But I’m lazy so I’ll eye ball. There are 20 ull squares +1 (t 0->20,M1->3)+2.5 for the rest. Mach one at 45kft and above is 295 m/s. So 138,650m= 74.7Nautical Miles.
This distance includes the loft trajectory.
Doing a bit more than napkin math, by End of burn missile alt is 90kft and at 77s(where it reaches highest point) its at 110-120kft. Down range distance in the NASA chart is less that the max distance here
It can be argued that its missing velocity… Not enough downrange distance and the missile’s peak altitude was lower(assuming it’ll follow a ballistic trajectory) on the real 110NM shot. And that at End of burn in my screenshot was at 45.6k ft and in the nasa doc its at 90k ft.
Something of note as well, the AIM-54A is lighter than the 54C both pre and post motor burn, so it gains speed better in-game.
I’m pretty sure basically every source I’ve seen states the 54C is a faster missile irl though. I’m also not quite sure how the 54C managed to gain weight, though im sure there must be some sources for the claim, but the 54C replaced some of its bulky analogue electronics for smaller digital electronics, and its WDU-29/B warhead weights the same as the old Mk82 warhead as well. Anyone have any idea whats going on there?
Sidenote, regarding the WDU-29/B warhead we previously discussed on the AIM-54C, I found an official document corroborating the 20-25% increased effectiveness of the WDU-29/B over the Mk82 warhead
It really is depressing looking at the AIM-54C as modelled in-game the more we learn about it irl…
The (still) broken and atrociously modelled AN/AXX-1 TCS on the F-14B is also depressing, but that one already has all the info in the world from 1st party sources along with most/all the code for it to function properly in-game though so I try not to think about it too much because gaijins just outright refusing to do anything about that one…
Someone pointed out a good point regarding directional warheads in WT.
Top attack missiles such as the TOW-2B, and BILL ATGM already use a quasi directional mechanic. I wonder if this could be adapted to things like the AIM-54C and AIM-7M.
Gaijin could also just do something a lot more basic like increase their proxy range and TNT modifier, or fragment modifier by 20-30% which would be way more simple for them to do. Not that they ever will, seeing as afaik, the russians never made any directional warheads for AAM’s
As discussed previously, it’s not directional in the same methods as the TOW-2B.
All they need to do is increase the explosive mass / damage that it does when it detonates near a target so that it replicates the 20% increase in effectiveness.
Do we know if this discussion has been heard by some dev? My impression is that nobody is doing nothing to fix this problems. We already have enough documents to fix the phoenix in a realistic way.
I still think they will buff it when other fox 3s enter the battlefield, but still the current Aim-54 A/C are useless right now, so just a little buff could make them competitive.
There are reports open for pretty much every issue discussed. Mythic’s overstating the issue in a lot of ways…
Overload should increase to 22-25Gs, range should increase, time to target should be better, proximity fuse should be reduced from 20 to 15m… overall the missile should be better in a lot of areas.
Mythic talks about some other capabilities that are either not relevant to the game, not actually on the AIM-54, or effecting all missiles currently but those are separate issues.
Last time we talked to a dev in this discussion he just either said no or outright ignored all points raised, and outright refused to believe info provided stating he didn’t believe the info made sense, such as the possibility of NCTR on the AIM-54C, which is stated in function, but not specifically in name;
Spoiler
Or the fact he just completely ignored all arguments about low smoke motor.
I refuse to waste my time bug reporting issues anymore when I know the mods will make me jump through hoops just for a possible approval, and the devs will just ignore the issue. I still interact here and provide new/interesting info when I can (such as the WDU-29/B being a directional warhead, which we didnt know until about a week ago) in the event someone else has an interest in the technical capabilities of the missile or feels like attempting the impossible task of trying to change gaijins mind regarding their poor modeling of NATO/Western tech.
Also, might just be that I’m bad at searching on the new bug reporting site, but doesnt really look like most if the AIM-54 bug reports still open are of particularly high quality, nor do many coherently touch on some of the issues, so I kinda doubt gaijins even looking at the missile at all atm. The only bug report I know is still open due to asking smin directly is the low smoke motor bug report from back during the first dev server with the F-14B.
Well, it clearly doesn’t have NCTR. It may be something else as stated. Further, they didn’t ignore your points. You didn’t have one most of the time, or the issue you were complaining about didn’t have a proper source. The ones that did have proper sources are either implemented already or lack necessary information to model the missile correctly.
In regards to maximum overload, they could show it has pulled 25G to intercept a target but not that it maneuvers in combined plane all the time. To model it as they’ve modeled all other missiles they have chosen to use the single plane figure.
The motor performance is relatively close to real life, only slightly underperforming. The top speed is limited because they do not have very good references for time to target and different scenarios.
You may have been ignored. The information “proving” it is not very explicit iirc. It’s possible there is more explicit information that was forwarded or they don’t know how the mark 47 mod 1 performs so they’ve opted to reuse the older motor (plausible that this was done irl).
Likely better off, since you’re spreading misinformation without properly reading into the information available. I’ve already had to correct you multiple times on the whole directional warhead thing.
As I’ve already stated, and as you’ve already read (since you keep reporting my posts, it’s obvious you haven’t blocked me)… the tech moderators have informed us that a lot of these issues have been reported internally. We will just have to wait and see if they’re added, or if you think a source has not been forwarded / attached feel free to contact them or make another bug report so it can be marked duplicate with the additional information forwarded.
Don’t be scared to bug report, I think spending all this time complaining instead of actually making the reports is counter productive.
Another day, another bunch of bug fixes, AIM-54C low smoke motor still being ignored despite multiple accepeted bug reports and strong sourcing regarding the subject having been passed to gaijin months ago.
You’re acting like the AIM-54C is the only thing in the game with outstanding bug reports. Plenty of other well sourced bug reports have taken longer to fix.
There is longer list of things that had been reported years before your precious smokeless motor that would also be incredibly easy fixes. Just because it’s easy don’t mean it’s going to happen any time soon.
From what I read AIM-54 can be guided at multiple targets only in range of one bar of radar, is it true? Is there anything unclassified about guidence of AIM-54 with TWS?
That’s already the case in WT, its not so much the AIM-54 itself as its an issue with the AWG-9’s TWS afaik.
Its one of the primary reason why the obnoxious TWS bug where the selected target and radar elevation and orientation randomly changes is so bad with the F-14; any change in elevation due to the bug can mess with if not outright ruin your TWS guidance. Its a major issue, but doesn’t seem to have any fixes in sight, nor do I expect gaijin, or most players to care, since it predominantly effects the F-14.
From what I saw it can’t currently can’t in game at all and you have to change soft lock from target to target to guide via DL, no? Asking cos don’t have F-14, can’t test myself.
No, as long as you have 1 target soft locked and the radar passes over the other targets it TWS guides afaik. You don’t have to flip flop between targets afaik.
Thats not it either, its likely more of limitation of the radar since its an old analogue radar. A lot of ppl forget since the radar has a lot of features and is very powerful, but this is a radar from the 60’s. Its very old. F-16’s TWS has better scan heights and its also not an ESA radar. The AWG-9 can also scan/guide with better elevation, but has to reduce the scan width to do so.
