IASGATG

You are right. In testing at 40kft at Mach 2 it hit high M3 so I assumed it'd break M4. Nevertheless, the Cd curves match wind tunnel data and the fly out performance is very close to known DLZ and range criteria so I'm confident in its modeling.

I don't feel that you're doing justice to how accurately modeled missiles can be. There will always be an element of assumptions made even when you have models in a wind tunnel. This doesn't mean you cannot generate a reliable predictive model for how something should behave. The stuff that is classified, which cannot be independently and accurately assumed, is stuff that doesn't really matter since DCS doesn't/can't really simulate it. If you look at the AIM-9M modeled in DCS. There are publicly available documents that list it's Cd, Cl, Cm, Xcp, Thrust, Structural Limits, etc etc. This gives you all the information you will ever need to make an accurate and realistic simulation of how it performs. Likewise, having spoken to people at ED, I know they have reliable data for the Sparrow as well. Similar techniques that can be applied to any missile, given the time and money. None of this is breaking any secrets acts or IP law. It's just physics. Saying that they are taking artistic licence with it is like saying that the cockpit isn't realistic and they are just taking artistic licence with that too.

Quite a bit better. I think there is a bug which I've asked about which undoes some of the good work, but I've found that for a 10kft alt engagement, it adds about 0.5-0.75M worth of energy to the missile. The bug I think I found is where at 8km, the missile suddenly switches to 100% PN which if I understand the code correctly, it shouldn't. This means when it hits 8km it suddenly goes from gentle 1.5g turns to 10-15g turns which dumps a ton of energy. We'll see if this is a bug or is as intended though.

The current AIM-7 FM matches very closely to known reliable data. The in game AIM-7 can exceed Mach 4 when fired in the right conditions. Nothing to see here.

Sent. :)

Sorry for the wall of images below, if someone knows how I can do some sort of "spoiler" hide button or something please let me know. The first series shows the vanilla AIM-7M fired at sea level, 30kft and 50kft, showing the base relative maximum range as defined previously. It shows that at sea level the missile is has a range of 10nmi instead of 14nmi. At 30kft it's about 24nmi instead of 25nmi. Lastly at 50kft it is 50nmi instead of 38nmi. The missile is too slow, even at 30kft, and especially at lower altitudes, whilst is too fast at extreme altitudes. The second series is my modified version, which is not perfect by any means, but attempts to provide better low level performance without over performing at higher altitudes. It shows that at sea level the missile is has a range of 13nmi instead of 14nmi. At 30kft it's about 25nmi. Lastly at 50kft it is 50nmi instead of 38nmi. Edit: It's 14 huge pictures, nevermind, please take my word for it. It's a big mess if I try and upload it. :( Edit 2: Here they are in no particular order if, like Nighthawk2174, you really want to view them. https://imgur.com/a/dHuhFrB Be warned they are in no particular order. (I might change that, but no promises)

Well the definition of relative max range is clearer than aerodynamic max range. Relative max says that the missile will impact at the same speed as launch speed. This gives a very clear picture of how much the missile should be decelerating by.

Hey Chizh buddy. I've been given permission to show this which should clear everything up. What's interesting is that the vanilla 7M actually outperforms in the 50kft shot slightly. It arrives at M2.2 I believe? Instead of M2.0 (For the 38nm shot). It's the low altitude shots that the missile falls very short in. Basically the transonic drag is too high and the M4 drag is too low. Ive done my best to bend the curve to fit these variables and after about 55 iterations I got pretty close, still slightly too fast at 50kft. Probably because the drag reduction for the motor being lit isn't represented so I have to make the missile too slippery.

Sure, they could have put 2 place holder AIM-7 variants to accompany the 7M, with all three missiles having identical code until they decide which direction they want to take things. However your quote of "any long range missile" then doesn't make sense, since they already have the 7M in the game. What does the radar have to do with anything? As established there are two problems with the missile. Firstly it's Cd curve is wrong, and secondly the guidance logic overall for all missiles is simple. ED has confirmed they are fixing at least the second at some point (Wags in August 2015). Neither of these things require the F-18 module to fix, so I'm not sure why you mention this. See above, although I'm not sure if it's been confirmed whether ED agree that the missile isn't flying fast enough. In all previous posts I have seen, ED is happy with the flight model of the missile, just not how it guides. We don't need books, videos or hearsay, as we have access to publicly available information on the level flight performance of the 7F. Since the F, M and P all have the same shape and motor, they will all have identical level flight performance. The missiles in game do not match up with these charts. This is literally saying "There is a LARs construct for missiles", which everyone knows. I don't see how this relates. Due to the nature of the website, I would guess it's trying to give the general public a rough explanation of "Hey, the max range is listed at 40nmi, however obviously this can't be done at sea level, or with an old radar." Sure, comparing a sea level shot at M0.9 vs a sea level shot at M0 will yield different ranges. However the AIM-7M in game doesn't reach either of them. Always gets brought up and is never relevant. :( I agree that ED has said it's WIP and stuff will change, and I really do think they ED just wants what's best. At the end of the day the people who benefit most from a happy community is them. As for information on realistic performance, I'll post what I can share here in one place for reference. I have a bunch from the F-4 Tacman manual on the AIM-7E2 which I'll have to dig out as well if interested.

There are two phases. A loft phase where the missile attempts to keep the target and a specific angle relative to the horizon. It maintains this until a specified distance to target, at which point it ends and instantly enters what you're calling the terminal phase. In the terminal phase, the missile attempts to keep a specific angle of lead pursuit. Only if the missile is coded to have the right seeker head and the loft code is enabled with the variables completed will it loft. If it is not set it will be terminal off the rail. There is no control to adjust the terminal guidance laws.

In the code you can set physical missile characteristics, like weight, thrust, burn time, drag curves etc. What you can't change is the guidance laws the missile follows. This means that third parties can make missiles that fly in a straight line quite closely to how they should, but they cannot stop the missiles from bleeding energy from constant little turns. The bigger problem for the AIM-7 is that at low levels, it has about half the straight line range it should. This is a relatively quick and easy fix, where as the guidance requires a code overhaul.

Hey Weta, any thoughts on the missile falling well short on sea level up to 30kft?

Okay lets make this test as clear and simple as possible. AIM-7F/M, at 30kft, at M1.2, vs 30kft M1.2, has an RAero of approximately 30nmi. For this to be considered successful RAero intercept, the missile needs to hit the target within 70seconds, and with a Mach number of approximately 1.2 to have the energy necessary to make an intercept turn. Here we see the setup, slightly under 30nmi, with the launcher slightly under M1.2 (1.15). On impact, the missile made the intercept within the 70 second timer (61 seconds), but was too slow (Mach 0.79) Rewinding the track, we see that at the intercept velocity of M1.2, the target is still 5.8nmi from the target. Overall this means that the FM is not representing the RAero performance.

Within 70seconds?

Hey Weta. So the 53nmi range comes from the USAF F-4 weapons manual which states that at 40kft at M2.0 vs 40kft M2.0 the missile will have a maximum aerodynamic range of 53nmi. It defines RAero as "the maximum distance a missile can travel while still able to effectively maneuver against a target." This includes the number of g's necessary to perform strategic maneuvers. This means that at the 53nmi intercept point the AIM-7F should have the energy to perform at least a 4g pull for a second to hit the target. This would require the missile to be approximately Mach 1. I'd like to note as this is the 7F, there is no lofting included in this flight profile.

Basically it'll wreck everything within about 15nmi pretty easily. This makes ER and slammer based platforms vulnerable from about twice the distance they're normally used to. Effective counters against a Phoenix armed opponent are chaff. Beyond this it's going to be very difficult. This doesn't take into account force multipliers like data link and AWACS.

Just to clarify things for everyone. The AIM-54 is basically going to add a maximum guaranteed kill range of about 10nmi on top of the AIM-120. So for reference, the AIM-120 has a Max pK 0.9 shot of around 5-6nmi, the AIM-54 will be around 15-20. THe AIM-7 obviously has about a 2-3nmi pK 0.9 shot in the game at the moment. A high phoenix payload will get you more kills than mixing in sparrows, I assure you.

Okay, cool to note. I guess it makes sense that once once the USAF they might do a software update for their own jets, or just use M's after they upgraded to the P for cost savings. Maybe bought them all off the USAF after the USAF stopped using them for 120's. Any word on the second part of my question? Or that still top secret hush hush?

Just a little question to the powers that be. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 7M wasn't a Navy weapon? I thought that the Navy went 7E-2 -> 7F -> 7P -> 7P bk 2. I could of course be wrong. Also does this confirm a revamp to missile guidance and ECCM logic? Since all three (4 if we include the bk 2) have the same aerodynamic performance (same shape and rocket motor). Cheers

Nope, can't be done. There is a workaround but the compromise is unacceptable.

Unfortunately it isn't.

This is cool as shit.

Xcom, why cant I change teams whenever I like?

Not for long. :(

Maybe it never went to a live round and was just a test round? I could be misremembering, it was a year or so ago. You say that the player base is there, and perhaps you'd know better than I? But in these events, how many people sign up? Are you talking like 15 MiG's and 15 Tiger's, or are you talking like 50 and 50? Because you need those sorts of numbers before you can make 70% of the fighters third gen on Blueflag.