Why is the AIM54 Phoenix so slow in acceleration in the game and so fast in DCS? It’s a huge difference, why nerf it so much? It would be a great BVR missile in its BVR version, but it loses in every aspect to the Fakour 90. Sure, the Fakour 90 is a newer missile, but the AIM54 is faster in real life than in the game. And no, I don’t have the manual, But it’s very noticeable if you see one of its launches in real life and in DCS, unlike War Thunder which looks like the Apollo 11 rocket., but any idiot knows that DCS is more realistic in these details. I really like War Thunder, but I want to know when they’re going to fix this.
Because DCS is realistic as they can be and War Thunder is realistic when they want to be. Key difference.
Yeah man, back in the day this was a necessity because the Phoenix would have been way too overpowered against the Su-27 and F-15A, but now, against the Fakour 90 and Su-30M2/MKK, I see it as necessary. There’s no arguing against it, unless you already have your toy in the hangar with Fakour, but some people don’t, so this topic is only for moderators.
1 Like
Ehhhh, in terms of weapon systems performance i’d say that’s actually the other way around. DCS does a lot to model the realism of operating a jet fighter, but the actual performance of them and their systems? not so much. Just look at how much the F/A-18 overperforms in DCS lol.
Anyways, In regards to the main topic specifically, the pheonix has two different engine variants, the Aerojet Mk60, and the Rocketdyne Mk47. DCS uses the MK.60, which has a shorter burn time, but higher peak thrust, meanwhile Warthunder uses the Mk.47, which has a longer burn time and lower thrust. So both are actually accurate in this regard.
Also, while not something i’m sure of if it was taken into account, the thrust values listed in the documents that DCS presumably used, were at an optimal high altitude launch IIRC. Warthunder generally uses ASL values, so the missile’s thrust will be lower. Neither is a more accurate way of modeling it, just different ways. Although again, i’m not aware of if this was actively taken into account or not in this specific case. Theres also a bit of a blur around here, with IRL thrusts often being listed as peak, however due to how thrust curves work IRL, using the peak listed thrust would give more total thrust than the missile actually produces.
1 Like
That plane is such a UFO it’s actually insane, it literally gains energy in the rate and mogs everything 😭
1 Like
But why not give MK60 to versions A and C?
1 Like
I dunno, the devs might’ve said something about it at some point, but i’m not aware of it if they did.
It does have better energy at range though from what i’m aware, so that could be a reason. Acceleration isn’t everything.
I think it would be really cool if we got variants with them, like we have some FFAR variants. Although even in that case there’s only a few implemented in comparison to the many variants we could get.
I remember seeing people rip the FBW computer fuses out of stuff and turning their planes in DCS into actual UFOs lmao
Can’t forget the legendary negative mass F-15 with a TWR of “yes”. Or the mach 20 viggen.
They might want to add it to a later version of the f14 later to give it another difference to what we have now.