I read it, there just isn’t alot I can say on the matter as I don’t make the decision when something is or isn’t changed. I can only feedback what the devs tell me and if there is no report for it I have no feedback and nothing to give.
Should be horizontal range. When you do the math, the missile impacts at ~160seconds, the limit of guidance. It’s limited to battery imo.
1 Like
Sorry for misunderstanding then, but your reply was literally that loft code was “new and in test”, which is both untrue, and leaves most of my post unaccounted for and unanswered, which is why I figured you didnt bother reading or understanding it.
Where did you get ~160 seconds for impact? Did you just do a basic trajectory calc? Also, I would’ve guessed slant range, seeing as the 110nmi is given in slant range, but my second guess would’ve been 72.5nmi along the missile trajectory, since it was referred to as “missile flight”
Also, anecdotal evidence, but I think this is the only shot I’ve seen where we get a glimpse at how aggressive the AIM-54’s loft is (the video is also just a fun watch so I’d give it a look just for the enjoyment factor too):
Edit:
Found more footage of a lofting AIM-54, this time a side view of an AIM-54A:
I mean in its new more aggressive form that is new. Sorry I’ve never really had a deep dive into the existing lofting mechanics.
1 Like
Its new for air to air missiles I guess, but the ground attack munitions have been lofting this aggressively and more so for a long time as well.
Idk, maybe I’m being too harsh, but as it stands, particularly since we know gaijin has the sources for 25g maneuverability but isn’t acting on them (I could dig up all the times David_Bowie has brought sources up and spoken about it), and the loft profile of the AIM-54 has already been arbitrarily improved once, and the most recent near doubling of fin AOA, it seems more and more like the control profile of the AIM-54 is either being completely guessed at and/or intentionally held back.
I see no logical reasons for, at very least the C, not to get improved lofting and/or energy management code like all other radar missiles from 1970 and beyond seen in-game. This would likely explain why the AIM-54C is quoted as being a faster missile than the A despite using similar motors and the A being lighter. We outright know that the AIM-54C got a new WGU-11/B guidance and WCU-7/B control section, so its not exactly a stretch to say the 54C would have an improved flight profile, yet in-game the only thing it improves on over the AIM-54A, which is over 20 years older than it, is a better inertial nav, leaving the AIM-54C to be outright worse in-game to its earlier A variant, for no logical or apparent reason.
That’s something I want to point out as well for those saying the AIM-54 is an “old missile”. The 54A is old, the 54C has just about every part of it changed compared to the A.
It has a new digital guidance section (WGU-11/B), it has a new directional warhead (WDU-29/B) in a new warhead section with a new fuse (DSU-28/B), a new motor (Mk47 mod 1), with a new control section (WCU-7/B).
It was being developed around the same time as the AIM-120, with the AIM-54C’s first flight test in 1980, a year before the AMRAAM. The 54C and 120A are very much from the same development time period, with the 54C likely only entering service earlier than the 120A because the 54C was an iteration of an older missile, while the 120A was brand new. Both would have had access to largely the same technologies, with both missiles being developed by Hughes during the same time period.
4 Likes
Launch was 110N.M apart and the horizontal distance travelled was 72.5N.M. The drone flew 37.5N.M at M1.5@50kft during that time. ~160s.
2 Likes
This is the closest I’ve gotten with the 110nmi M1.5 shot in a user mission.
Launch at 110 nm distance, 39,500 ft altitude, Mach 1.5. 69.9 nm distance traveled before it ran out of battery 8.2km from target.
I could reattempt the shot with the launch altitude being closer to the IRL figures, but I doubt 500 feet more would’ve made the shot hit.
EDIT: I went ahead and did a test as close to the IRL parameters as I could get just to be sure.
Launch at 110 nm distance, 39,973 ft altitude, Mach 1.5. 70.14 nmi distance traveled before running out of battery 6.5km from target.
5 Likes
Maybe it’s not clear to me but what altitude was the target if yours was 40k feet?
49995ft
1 Like
Could I get a video of this so it can be used in a report?
Sure thing. Do you know if its AIM-54A or C that is being referenced?
It might also be an issue if the test is done with a user model as the launching aircraft, but it’s not possible to get a solid lock at 203km with AWG-9 in game. A missile launch is possible as the PDV mode can trick the radar into locking above 185km for just long enough to launch a Phoenix, however it doesn’t get any mid-course guidance updates and therefore doesn’t quite fly straight enough to go pitbull due to the inertial navigation drift.
EDIT: Turns out I misread the launch parameters and tested at 40,000 feet instead of 44,000 feet.
Launch at 110 nm distance, 44,051 ft altitude, Mach 1.5. 73.65 nmi distance traveled before running out of battery 0.7km from target. Missile reached at least 100,000 feet altitude by my rough estimation. Sorry for the false alarm fellas.
1 Like
What was the top speed of the missile during that time?
1 Like
The missile hit mach 4.44 at motor burnout.
1 Like
So from this test, it went 73.6 Nm and around 100k ft by estimation. This pretty much matches this scenario. With thrust being correct, it looks like we’re back at looking at drag it appears since it’s not reaching its stated speed. Otherwise it’s quite impressive it’s meeting those other parameters. Thanks for your test!
1 Like
Yeah it looks to be performing exactly as on the document. There was a patch where they had changed its loft guidance, battery time, and significantly reduced its drag and I suspected it was to fit this scenario.
Allegedly the AIM-54 is supposed to hit a higher top speed at burnout, but all that would lead to is higher thrust amount but also higher drag so that it would still fit these parameters, but thats all too much work for two missile to just get the same end results. Higher acceleration and higher drag would mean that the missile would lose more speed against manuevering targets due to the higher drag.
To devs, as long as the burntime is correct, the loft altitude is correct, and the distance traveled is correct, then the missile is good enough and performing as it should be.
@MythicPi looks like you might have been bothering stepanovich this whole time while he knew in the back of his mind that the missile was performing correctly, hence the ignoring.
1 Like
AIM-54A
It is permitted to use custom models for bugreporting purposes, as well as custom radars, so long as you test the correct data points and you tested the correct unedited missile, and that’s pretty much all that matters.
I’ll assume that if the missile had been able to get mid-course guidance updates throughout, the travel path may have been good enough to make a connection instead of exploding at 0.7km away.
So what is left? With all else being correct, the only other items I can remember being discussed is G pull and reduced smoke but that’s about it.
G pull and reduced smoke is reported to my knowledge from statements of Mig23M and DavidBowie.
What’s not reported is the supposed directional warhead for AIM-54C.
1 Like