IASGATG

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I feel I need to comment on the perception on the AIM-54's ability to turn. Depending on internal weight, altitude and airspeed, the 54 can pull in the excess of 18g. It has been demonstrated to successfully hit 7g+ targets. Timing a 9g crank against it at the right moment will likely cause the missile to overshoot, however jink defence against missiles hasn't really been a thing since Vietnam.

The HUD display is basically a moving DLZ chart yes. The argument goes as follows: DLZ data says that a M0.9 20kft shot against co-speed, co-alt, fighter sized, non-manoeuvring target, will have a max curve of 20nmi, it curves down to 1.5nmi. It'll have a note to say that 5nmi is max pK. Philosophy a says that if the bandit at 5.1nmi turns 180 and extends at M0.9, the missile will miss. Moreover if the bandit is at 20nmi, the missile will hit in a deep stall as all energy is lost. If within 5nmi the missile will have enough energy to catch the 180 turned target and hit it just as the missile falls to M0.9. The philosophy says that RMax is pK 0. It says that somewhere in the middle thete is some pK? And that rtr the pK 0.9 (can never have pK 1). Anyway you should get the picture. If the expectation is that the top of the dlz chart for this launch is 40km, then the philosophy dictates thr missile has to be going 300kts on impact. This means the missile has to accelerate to M4 then down to M0.7 in under 50 seconds, with a motor running for 10 seconds of flight and reach a travel distance of about 30km (haven't done the maths on 40km - M0.9 for 50s).

The nutshell boils down to this. ED's philosophy is that the limit of the DLZ curve is an aerodynamic limit and the missile stalls at that point. Razbam's philosophy is that a DLZ chart is a guide of effective pK for the pilot and isn't directly an aerodynamic performance chart. Both can be argued and have their merits. They just give very different results.

Unfortunately the word "depends" gets used a lot here. Altitude, weight, loadout? Fastest so instantaneous turn rate? But how much energy out the other side? Etc.

My gut tells me that it's a lag issue. As far as I've seen, the new netcode changes don't actually place other aircraft where they are in their game. It attempts to "smooth" out the location of all objects, which in turns offsets them. I've tested this quite a bit with guns fights and I've been firing through a buddy and the rounds just miss. On my screen he's in my sight, on his screen I'm actually lagged behind quite a bit. This would be the same for the missile code, where the missile isn't fuzing because the bandit is actually in a different location. Now if both the shooter and the defenders tacview match up and show the exact same thing, then it's not lag (probably). The problem is testing stuff like this is really hard work as we don't have a sandbox/debug suite that lets us really get into the nitty-gritties of what the engine is doing.

This fired against players or AI?

Nah, it's a 77. The standard minor course corrections towards the bandit are enough to defeat a adder launch from more than 10nmi.

Can I ask how you enabled it? I looked for the multi-crew option in the mission editor and cannot see it?

Dunno, seems a bit one sided that Redfor gets two jets that are known to have a crap damage model and Bluefor doesn't. It sounds a lot like I'm whining, but I'm just thinking about having to expend 2-3 of my 4 missiles at one bandit assuming all 2-3 hit. When my missile is shorter range, turns less, lacks off-boresight, etc etc etc.

Blufor get's the MiG-29 because Poland joins the war?

Greg, you got the stats yet or what mate?

I'd ignore the 7M for anything but tail chase and use exclusively 9M to fight head on.

So we all agree I can fly SFM F-14 with AIM-54? Awesome.

Pretty sure the MiG-29 is harder to kill than the Mirage. The MiG-29 is typically 1 slammer and 2 heaters to kill. As for the Su-33 flight model. [ame] [/ame] go to 3:30 and watch how retarded is. That being said, the su-33 is a piece of junk, so put it in, wont make a difference balance wise.

The thrust is 10% too low. HTPB has 250-265 isp, not 240. This is before we acknowledge the lack of drag reduction when motor is on in the game. P.S. doesn't have the lift upgrade the AIM-9M and R-73 got. But little steps.

And Scat, don't forgot me!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n9dkxyh239m95ax/AIM-9L%20Standard%20Missile%20Characteristics%201974.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/l7tanfl2lbla7s5/Performance%20Improvements%20with%20Sidewinder%20Missile%20Airframe%20Variants.pdf?dl=0

Very similar shape to 9L. 9M in game based off of 9L diagram, so the Cd curve will be fine. They're the same anyway. On Cl is different, didn't get the turn rate improvement the 9M and R73 got. The motor SR116 motor was produced at the same time as the 9P was introduced so I assume the same motor used throughout. Just a seeker and ECCM improvements through the blocks.

Two lines of code puts 9Ms on the jet.

Correct data. In game at current: 5 second burn time at 5.5kg/s mass flow rate at 8000N of thrust. A bit of maths and physics tells us that this is a 27.5kg motor with an ISP of 148. Real Life: [ame]https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/missile-products/sidewinder/docs/AIM%209P%20Sidewinder%20Approved%20PAO%2075ABW-2015-0032%20092215.pdf[/ame] Gives us a unit weight of 88lbs. Rule of thumb says 60-65% of that is fuel which gives us a propellent grain of 53lbs. But what, IASGATG, that's just your guess. You don't know what you're talking about, it could be anything! Wrong, I know what I'm talking about. https://nationalstocknumber.info/national-stock-number/1337-01-061-9508 US National Hazard's declaration - 53lbs or 24kg. Now what about the thrust? Well HTPB as stated in the first link has a typical ISP of 240-260. Considering ED has sided with 260 for the 9M and 120, which is reasonable. The missile should have more kick for less weight. Now the only thing we don't know is burn time. All the old school IR SRM's had a very short burn time, in the 2-3s category. So if we stick in the same vein, we'd see something that looks like this: Burn time: 3 seconds Mass Flow Rate: 8kg/s Thrust: 20404N Obviously as I said the burn time is purely a guess and could be up to the 5.5s of the 9M, although this is unlikely as the 9M has more fuel than the 9P. The difference in burn time is this - shorter = better close range performance, longer = longer range.

Like I said, try shooting at 8nmi.

Try waiting until the 120s max range of 8nmi. You'll get okay results if you shoot within this parameter

Just because one thing is at fault, doesn't mean both aren't. I assure you, the FM for the AIM-9P and P5 are off. :) Schmidtfire - The Max speed stuff is old code that doesn't do anything any more when it has the AFM stuff written further below.

I should point out that the rocket motor on the P5 is completely wrong too, along with the lift profile. Hence why it doesn't turn like the 9M.

Okay because everyone seems to just be shouting at this point. IASGATG is here to save the day again. 1. The F-15 should have a damage model added like the Su-27 where at the point of extreme over-g (Whatever that is decided to be (Likely around 14g)). This will mean that if the F-15 will explode like the Su-27 once it hits this g force. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, we all agree on this. 2. The F-15 should have it's flight model adjusted so that the highest g it can pull is between 12.5 and 13.5 as reflected in observation and documentation. This would effectively make point 1 moot. 3. This isn't a priority due to a. The number of massive game breaking bugs that currently exist in the game and b. due to the extremely rare and forced nature of this flight profile. In "live fire" exercises, I can say that my eagle doesn't push past 10g. This isn't through lack of trying. I am never "Gentle" with the stick, and you're right, I never have to be careful about "janking their joysticks around" because I know that my jet wont rip it's wings off. However, at no point am I in this 14g threat terriroty when I am pulling to save my life. 4. Because of this, Eagle pilots say that it wont really make that much of a difference. We aren't going to fly any difference even if we get point 1 and not point 2. We don't fly at these extreme profiles. Not in BFM, not in missile jinks, not in BVR. It's never needed. The Eagle wants rate in BFM. Missiles can out-g anything you can pull (AIM-9 and R-73 are 45g rated, you're never out turning an archer). And why you need to suddenly pull 14g at 15nmi I'll never know. Okay, thread done. Now we wait.