If the aircraft continued to fly straight towards the last known point of intercept, maybe.
its better than in war thunder.
and proximity warheads for missiles are essentially broken in multiplayer. cancels it out.
and in war thunder missiles do damage in a 360degree sphere .
thats a very minor thing to complain about, proper bank to turn modelling would at most introduce as slightly delay in g pull.
these are nonsense in war thunder too.
burn time is true, thrust is dubious in both war thunder and dcs.
true, in war thunder its outright incapable of doing so.
Burn time is not true, it is static and wrong in both
idk why you bothered writing up this pointless reply
A while ago, i did actually get a bug report passed to devs as a suggestion for a method of roughly modeling BTT missiles. It was, a lot simpler then fully modeling them, but is decently accurate, and more importantly could be done without actually needing to change anything about how missiles are normally modeled.
Basically, what it was, is instead of having seperate physics models for them, it was to simply calculate their fin AoA and wing area multiplier, as though they were already rotated 45 degrees. Which for wing area mult can be done by calculating (X*sin(45))*2, where X is the single plane value. And the fin AoA can be approximated by converting a Euler angle to an axis with angle magnitude value. As it converts the relative rotation of the fin’s AoA when adjusted by the 45 degree rotated plane of the missile, to the rotational vector relative to the corrected angle of alignment.
Also, something else i worked on, but didn’t end up including in the report, was a method of roughly simulating the time to roll into orientation by a set of time to gain factors. Although I didn’t end up including them in the report because they were slightly sloppily done.
5 Likes
by “true” i meant what you said was true mate, and as for thrust its very hard to find specs on the motors of missiles, but ingame phoenixes are underperfoming in all likelyhood
thats unironically a brilliant idea, it certainly beats how many complex thinks are simplified ingame already.
1 Like
Dusting off this quote for the new people who don’t know how much Gaijin hates the F-14/Phoenix.
We’re never getting the Aim-54 fixed because the devs don’t like it. Simple.
5 Likes
surprised the magic 2 isn’t there as well
TBF it doesn’t technically have BTT, which IIRC was the only real factor gaijin looked at for their implementation of if it can actively roll into orientation or not.
Although yeah since that post was made, the magic II’s maneuverability was buffed using it’s stated “dual plane” maneuverability as a basis. It’s BTT specifically gaijin doesn’t have an implemented method of modeling yet, so ig since the magic II technically does not use BTT it got by when stuff like the AAM-3/Aim-54 haven’t.
1 Like
Yikes. A month without any posts. Let’s change that.
According this this source: (https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b3e347ea-7ab8-46cb-89f3-20ea4dc8eec6/)
“Improvements in aircraft maneuverability dictate the
need for missiles to increase performance and capabilities.
A rule of thumb for design is that the missile must have a 4:1 acceleration advantage over the target. With modern aircraft able to sustain lateral accelerations of ten times
the force of gravity (G) the missile must be capable of 40G.”
Meaning the Aim-54 hitting a 6G maneuvering target must be able to hit 24G (6 x 4).
“the phoenix wasn’t made to hit maneuvering targets”
Diagram showing a 6 Phoenix missile launch also shows a ~115 mile detection on a tiny target and very rough calculations for the Aim-54 seeker range given we do some math.
4 Likes
It’s 6x3 not 6x4
For example, r24 7 g target and pull 24 Gs itself
7x3 is 21…
A STUDY OF SECOND AND THIRD ORDER MODELS FOR THE
TRACKING SUBSYSTEM OF A RADAR GUIDED MISSILE
by
John Walter /^illiams
Captain, United States Marine Corps
B.S., United States Naval Academy, 1978
It’s clearly not x4, because how do you explain missiles like r-23 and r-24, r-23 being target overload of 6 Gs for 20 Gs missile overload and 7 Gs 24 overload for r24.
Don’t have 23 docs on hand but I got 24
I don’t know. But American doctrine and Russian/Soviet Doctrine are not the same. American doctrine says 4:1.
5 Likes
I don’t mean to comment on the AIM-54 in general but this is a poor way of doing things since missiles with greater proximity fuze radius and greater warhead need less maneuverability to concretely destroy targets.
1 Like