Depends on when they used the numbers. They did their own assessment of the missile and came to a conclusion, and as new information was revealed I think it became increasingly obvious that no one was correct about it’s performance.
Everyone thought it was slower than it really is, the Mk60 does not extend range but rather provides a faster burn and lower overall ISP and higher acceleration… both have approximately 360-364 pounds of propellant and ~370 total pounds of material is burnt off (some of which is inert / ablative).
What I need to do is collect a list of sources and connect them on sort of a board showing all the information available… just don’t have time.
Funny how it took literally 2 weeks for gaijin to “fix” the MiG-29’s FM (nerfed on 9/19, buffed yesterday), but gaijin still refuses to give the AIM-54C its low smoke motor, bug reported not once, but twice:
“Theres just a lot of bug reports coming in and were overwhelmed”, sure, thats why you decide to only work on the russian ones then lmao, what an absolute joke
Would literally require gaijin to change, 1 or 2 lines of code that they could copy paste from the 9M and 65D.
FM devs generally get things done within 2 weeks… and are separate from the other devs. Idk why you bother complaining about this stuff and you already know they got credible AIM-54 information literally a week ago or so.
The fact that it was fixed before the AIM-54C got improved maneuvrability or a smokeless motor still doesnt actually help its case lmao.
Theres a million and one arguments the pro-russian players use to try to explain why all their stuff gets fixed ASAP while everyone else just gets to sit around and wait, or argue with the devs because the devs openly dont “believe” multiple sources regarding western tech (see K_stepanovich arguing every single source we’ve provided him about missile seeker capabilities, such as FM ranging for sparrows/skyflash, and any improvements regarding the AIM-54C’s seeker)
As I stated, some of theses bug fixes, such as the low smoke motor, would LITERALLY be changing a single line of code to match 2 other missiles alreafy ingame. They dont even need to dig for a bug or model anything new. They just need to change a single line of code and they refuse to do so despite tons of evidence.
Wasn’t it a bug which affected all SARH missiles though? Pretty sure I saw a video of someone firing a Skyflash in TWS mode (without guidance of course).
Based on videos shouldn’t the AIM-54C produce less smoke than it currently does, but noticeably more than the AIM-9M currently does? So it would need a new type of smoke effect as well.
Ive seen skyflash launch in TWS on the dev server, but never on live, and none of the sparrows could launch in TWS, nor could the 530D.
The 54C’s reduced smoke motor has been bug report since it was added to the dev server, twice, on 2 different bug report plateforms, with multiple independent sources, and its been accepted, they just REFUSE to change it.
And like I said, changing it from its super smoky motor it currently has to a low smoke motor would be a hell of a lot easier than digging around in the code trying to figure out why the R-27ER can launch in IRST, but the IRST launch was fixed and the 54C is still unchanged
The 9M and 65D use the same low smoke lines of code and the 65D is asubstantially closer to the 54C than the 9M in size.
As for the “smoke” in videos, its contrail from a high alt launch. The fact gaijin even brought that up as an “argument” is a bad joke and was literally quashed in the first bug report regarding the 54C’s missing reduced smoke motor
The fix was the R-27ER’s ability to be launched from IRST, not “all SARH’s being able to be launched from TWS” if that was fixed as well, those are either 2 seperate issues, or it wasnt anounced
As far as I can tell from the manual FM ranging is only used for arming the proximity fusing system on Sparrow, it doesn’t help with guidance so is fairly irrelevant as far as the game is concerned.
And Skyflash has no frequency modulation what so ever.
in that case , shouldn’t you Move the MIM-72 to lower BR or give it uncaged missile ? or even giving it a smokeless missile , all simple fixes as it is the most underperforming SPAA in game ?
Not as simple as copy pasting 2 lines of code to fix a well documented outstanding bug report to finally give the AIM-54C its low smoke motor ¯\ _ (ツ)_/¯
The Phoenix requires a deeper remodeling than adjusting one line of code. They will need to do a lot of testing, and even then it may still require new lofting mechanics. Might take some time to fix and still isn’t at the top of their to-do list.
Even so, I fully expect you to continue complaining in spite of the fact that things like F-16 truly overperform and they needlessly nerfed the MiG-29 when the patch dropped. You’ll ignore that when you go on another tirade about how the game is biased towards Russia.
So russia is under performing… why not just give them the R-73E and the R-27ET with the 1990s IR seeker which was 95% impossible to flare on the 1st mig-29 dev server 🤔
No one is asking for them to buff the Russian equipment outside of giving it some historical realism. Most Russian mains have actually campaigned to remove the R-27ER and to just fix the flight performance.
Likewise, we’re asking for things on both side of the fence such as AIM-54 to be corrected and F-16 to be given realistic flight performance as well. Is it so hard to ask for realism on both sides of the fence without someone implying you want a specific side to be better than the other?
