Thats really not an issue imo. 100% reliability is a feature of this game and arguably everything wins from it, there are just some that win a bit more.
Things like intentionally mismodelling missile max pull (a moderator just admitted that the AIM-54 doesn’t pull 25G because gaijin doesn’t model combined plane maneuverability, despite it being the proper and fair way to model missiles), omitting seeker advances (AIM-54C’s digital seeker has multiple noted advantages from target discriminations, beam aspect capabilities and improved low alt attack and even NCTR according to one of my recent sources), those are decisions on gaijins part which have a tangible negative impact on gameplay for certain groups of players only and by extension, are advantageous for other groups (the main losers are the NATO players, the main winners are the russians, surprise surprise)
And the mod in question didn’t have sufficient sources to prove it and still may not be enough. I encourage you to share any further sources you have within the rules gaijin must follow. If you have further proof of combined plane guidance it WILL be modeled.
Do we know if the AIM-4/AIM-47 Falcons used bank-to-turn? AIM-54 is made by the same company, and more than resembles these earlier missiles, so it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say it could use bank-to-turn if they could.
I don’t think it’s appropriate or feasible to make all missiles dual-plane maneuverability, only a very small number of missiles can take advantage of dual-plane maneuverability.
There are limitations based on how the missile works and in most cases it is not available.
To date, only the AIM-54 is the only missile in the WT that we believe can substantially utilize dual-plane maneuverability. All other missiles can only use dual plane maneuverability in limited circumstances.
This really isn’t a modelling issue, and if it was the easiest solution would be to just, yanno, increase the lateral maneuverability of the AIM-54 to match its dual plane limits until more missiles that had dual plane maneuvering were added. Not doing so is just straight up nerfing a missile for no reason, and the AIM-54 nerf of 8G (32%) is MASSIVE.
Massively nerfing something when you have the ability to get it closer to how it should perform easily (like come on, the change would literally require a grand total of changing the number 17 to 25), then trying to rationalize that decision is rather silly.
The tail does not rotate. It (the missile body) is free to spin inside of the tail unit. There is a difference. It allows the magic 2’s improved guidance to maneuver with roll stabilized 45 degrees between control surface planes.
The information stated is the incorrect weight and such. It’s the standard “this is public data” stuff that they put out. Sort of like how AIM-120A is stated as between 335 to 345 pounds but it’s actually 326 pounds per the sources in my other thread. It’s still an interesting read none the less.
I mean, we have multiple first party source regarding the TCS functionnality and its been extensively bug reported. Theres no reason for gaijin to not have fixed the TCS yet besides them just not wanting to. I wouldnt expeft the TCS to ever be fixed at this point, theyre clearly unwilling to model things on the F-14 properly/in good faith following their admittance to intentionnaly nerfing the AIM-54.
Nvm the fact that the TCS bug report was literally written before the jet was even added to the game and was the VERY FIRST bug report of the dev server with the F-14B.
You would rarely get situations for this to happen, the AIM-54 only climbs for long distance targets and we don’t have the maps to facilitate this. The point of this function would be meaningless until we get bigger maps.
Usual engagement range in War Thunder is 10km to 40km (for BVR) and generally the Phoenix wouldn’t need to climb for that
That violates the very meaning if a “sustain-only” booster design. The high altitude and long burn are specifically designed to reduce drag and increase average velocity to target, improving end game kinematics. Without lofting, the AIM-54 doesn’t come down on target from higher angles and speeds. Unless the target it at unreasonably short range (active from launch)… it should loft. The maps are plenty large enough to utilize the Phoenix to it’s fullest potential (as far as high pK on target)…
