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.
I mean i own the F-14 in DCS and DCS/heatblur may not be 100% accurate but from what i khow is that in tws mode, the AWG-9 tries to maintain a tws lock on a target in that certain radar asimuth. So to actually defeat the radar/missile you have to knotch the radar or drastically drop in altitude
It doesnt really bug me too much, I was more just answering Dragon. Could’ve probs just dm’ed it, or kept speculating out of it, tho im sure itll get flagged soon enough as well lol.
Itd be nice to get back on topic of the AIM-54 tho tbh, granted theres not much info to discuss anymore unless anyone finds any new sources for the devs to ignore.
Fair enough, I guess I’ve just become so jaded with the mechanics abuse on this forum and gaijins handling of certain things that I’ve just given up on even bothering
You do indeed have to cycle the soft-locked targets to update guidance for each individual missile fired. So you will have to remember which targets you fired at and cycle through them, a much easier feat done with cyclic targeting off.
Russian TWS is pretty trash, it doesn’t hook onto targets so it only holds tracks if the radar is already pointed at the target and stays within the elevation and azimuth, this makes it so its impossible to defend while holding a TWS lock
Better TWS modes are the ones that refresh quickly and hook onto a target, Mirage 2000 TWS is fantastic for example because it only scans 1 bar of elevation so it refreshes very quickly aswell as it also hooks onto the target so you can roll, bank, pitch, do whatever and the target stays hooked on TWS.
Are you talking in-game or irl? Single bar TWS systems might refresh quickly, but they are also terrible at dealing with elevation changes of multiple targets, and at least for the AWG-9 TWS in game, it almost always loses the lock if you roll, bank, or roll and bank…
Im reffering to ingame, its useful for fastest refreshes when targeting a single target because it can account for target movements during your own movements. All around im not particularly fond of USSR/Russian aircraft TWS because they dont hook targets and either refresh very slowly (N019) or to have a decent refreshrate the azimuth is very small (bad for situational awareness and multi targeting)
AWG-9 TWS ingame i dont have much problems with, I have target cyclic off so I manually cue targets which helped with random target switches in the AWG-9.
