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.
3 Likes
Because DCS is realistic as they can be and War Thunder is realistic when they want to be. Key difference.
6 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
10 Likes
That plane is such a UFO it’s actually insane, it literally gains energy in the rate and mogs everything 😭
7 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
They might want to add it to a later version of the f14 later to give it another difference to what we have now.
I’m sorry, but the F14D will be unplayable with the Phoenix, considering its BR will be 13.7 to 14.0. These lazy developers should have already implemented it instead of scratching their butts making the SU30SM2.
I dont know what they will add to it to make it 14.0
For something to be nerfed it had to have been in a higher state to begin with. It hasn’t.
DCS’s AIM-54 is not faster if they’re modeling it correctly.
If DCS’s is faster, that’s incorrect.
And if it looks faster to you, that is because first person view gives a different perspective.
This is like very false, it’s been tested and proven that DCS is behind in missile kinetic modeling based on irl data. In fact, Warthunder is working with newer and more data than DCS while DCS resorts to “CFD modeling”.
My friend, DCS is used by several real air forces, real pilots use it for training, do you really want to get into this discussion? Literally, War Thunder is arcade-style, where reality will never exist because programmers make the KH38 seem better than in reality, just because it’s Russian. American things will always be better, but not including an MK60 rocket used in AIM54A is ridiculous, that’s gone too far.
Dude, in short, it needed a much higher drop angle, less smoke, more acceleration, a much better guidance and INS system, besides the acceleration, in short, give it what it has and make the 12.7 to 13.0 BR, and the 25g it weighs, worthwhile!
just cause that’s true doesnt mean aspects of dcs are necessarily more realistic than the same aspects in war thunder.
War thunder for example, IR modeling, while overally nerfed, is still far better than the system that DCS has in place that uses RNG. Also, clouds in wt actually block ir signature unlike in dcs.
Overall missile modeling in war thunder is far superior than DCS.
Also in DCS you can out roll basically any missile lol in MP. Surely that’s realistic.
8 Likes
Some air forces have used DCS World as a training aid. A professional version called Mission Combat Simulator (MCS) is available for organizational use.[24]
The United States Air Force’s 355th Training Squadron at Davis-Monthan AFB makes use of DCS as an instrument and weapons-system trainer for the A-10C. The use of virtual reality headsets is preferred for a more immersive experience.[25]
Before the Mirage 2000C was retired in 2022, the French Air Force used DCS for both instrument and tactical training with the M-2000C module, citing insufficient numbers of professional simulators.[26]
Ukrainian pilots have trained using the A-10C II and F-16C modules for DCS World.[27][28]
It’s more a ponctual training, mostly based on MCS
Balance the Fakour and the Phoenix, give the Phoenix the same acceleration and range as the Fakour, almost a copy and paste, like the SD-10A with the PL-12, and increase the G to 25g. It’s so simple to fix something, even I, who studied programming in college, would know how to do it, it’s simple. I’m not talking about you, but the game’s programmers are forgetting to fix bugs, and instead they’re just adding unnecessary vehicles.
With the current meta, acceleration is basically equal to more advanced IRCCM/seeker tech though.
A missile that hits mach 4.5 off the rail and keeps that out to 20km is better than a missile that could potentially hit mach 5 after 15 to 30s at 30+km.
R-27ER still being competitive with advanced radars against ARH missiles just goes to prove that absurd kinematics absolutely can overcome better tech.
1 Like
Except the fakour’s propulsion section isnt based on either the Mk.60 or Mk.47. Its based on the motor from a HAWK SAM.
Even if warthunder was to put in the faster burning motor, it still wouldnt be the same as a fakour.