It was only AIM-7 from C to 7M, Sky flash, Sky flash supertemp and Aspide
1 Like
7P as well, no?
Let me look again
Nope
Where are you finding what they changed? Datamines?
Ah, alright.
I figured they would’ve, since this was posted yesterday
Really? So they forgot that the 7P existed? Why does it say “aim_7p_new” on the graphics?
Official patch notes
1 Like
It might not have been ready, maybe untill mon or tue we’ll see.
Lemme ask Stona, I’m p sure the 7P uses the same FM as the F/M so it may have just been forgotten.
I tested on statshark and the AIM-7P and the AIM-7M fly exactly the same.
Yeah, it could just be a typo that is missing on accident.
3 Likes
So given the absolute doom the demon’s aim-7C has been causing to the meta, I took a look at it’s ingame performance compared to what it should be…
Using the sea level and 50000 feet distance over time graphs from the SAC as edge cases, we can see using the ingame ballistics comparison tool that in a straight line it seems to have the correct thrust at sea level(3900 meters or about 2,2 nautical miles after 6.89 seconds), but a bit too much thrust up high, (5640 meters or about 3.13 nm after 7.35 seconds, when graph indicates it should only be about 2.8 nm at 7 seconds).
The drag also seems to be close enough at sea level, since after 18.75 s the sea level launched AIM-7C covered 8690 m or 4.8 nm ingame ( SMC indicates it should be 4.7 nm within 19 seconds, within margin of error) but too low up high, since it covered 20438 m/11.35 nm in 26.94s when smc indicates it should be around 10.2 nm, at most.
But the real upgrade is in it’s turning performance; using statshark, we can see that at 50000 feet the lateral g force is now much closer to the smc than the old one (mach 2,4 6.7 G ingame vs 8G SMC, mch 2,8 11,5 G ingame vs 10,2 g SMC). The old one having a 20 second battery limit was also too low, although 30 seconds might still be too low?
However, it seems to me that the biggest reason why it’s so lethal now is the change in lift induced drag; Note how the new aim-7C is still at mach 2 after 28 seconds of a max performance near 180º turn, while the old one was already at mach 1.86 after just 14 seconds of a much gentler turn:
So my question is if this change is a mistake to be reverted soon, a magic antigravity spell only the sparrows can cast, or if it’s actually a more accurate turning performance model that will soon be implemented across all missiles?
during the heavy cavalry dev blogs/server season gaijin talked about news mechanic that would change the way missiles would behave in game in an attempt to get closer results to how they behave in real life, one of these new mechanics was for changing the lift coefficient of the missile based on the current mach number.
this mechanic was added to the game on the heavy cavalry update and was functional as i had tested when it was first added, but it was unused until our current update sky odyssey, and is currently “present” on the entire sparrow family of missiles, this is what it looks like on the code:
Spoiler
for each line, the first value you see is the mach number and the second value is the number the lift coefficient will be multiplied by, example: an sparrow at mach 1 would have a lift coefficient of 3.5 (3.5 x 1.0), as the base lift coefficient is 3.5. at exactly mach 2.8 the lift coefficient would be 1.526 instead (3.5 x 0.436), a lower lift coefficient means slightly worse turning performance and slightly worse straight line performance as the missile needs more angle of attack to keep going straight.
my friend cezar mentioned a few days ago that this mechanic was apparently not working in game, when testing it myself with a normal sparrow and one edited to have extreme or 0 values for all the multipliers, it was 100% equal to the normal sparrow, even when deleting the block that has the lines with the multipliers, i would get two identical sparrows in any situation.
a few moments later it was noticed by cezar that the entire block with the CyMachMult lines were placed in the wrong place and that’s why it wasn’t having any effects on the missile at all, when i first tested it before it was implemented on any missile, i placed the lines on the main “rocket” block of the code, this is where the physical properties of the missile are, such as mass, burn time, lenght, etc. like this:
Spoiler
but when they were added to the sparrow family, they weren’t placed there and instead were placed in their own block just below the main “rocket” part of the code, like this:
Spoiler
like i said earlier, this mechanic is not having any effect at all on the sparrows but it’s still added in their code, which is unsual for mechanics that aren’t meant to not be having any effects, for example, there is currently a mechanic for ramjet missiles meant to full throttle the missile when it’s within a certain time to hit of the enemy, this mechanic will likely be used for the meteor when the time comes, another unused mechanic is a dual pulse line that triggers the dual pulse in a specific altitude range (?), this is not used for any missile and isn’t present in the code of any missile either.
so in the end we were left wondering if it was intended for the sparrows to not use this mechanic as of now and leave it for the future, whenever other missiles get this mechanic added too like they mentioned in the dev blog, or if it was meant to be changing the flight performance of the sparrows but some mistake happened and it was left having 0 effects on the missile, idk whats the deal with it and hopefully someone will have an answer
4 Likes
I see, if it’s currently not working then would that lock the lift coefficient at 3.5, in effect making the missile overperform in turning ability/lift induced drag when it’s travelling at speeds over mach 1.2?
if it’s something unintended, yes it would be locked at 3.5 and would be slightly overperfoming in these aspects comparing it to the same missile with the mechanic working
AIM7F/M doesn’t reach max range at sea level // Gaijin.net // Issues Community Bug Reporting System
2 Likes
i did aff the 25.5kn booster and 4.5kn sustainer and yeah it can hit plane moving at Mach 0.95 and the lunching aircraft also moving at mach 0.95 at 7 km way from lunching plane but the current aim7m can’t hit it
i think they should add the aim7mh insted of aim7m to f15 and f14b/d at least the aim7mh can loft so can givve long range buff
Interesting chart from the red baron report for the first third of the vietnam war. Vast majority of sparrow shorts were taken at low altitudes against maneuvering targets, no wonder a big % had no guidance.
2 Likes