almullao

I would kill for a j10c with pl15s :).

That's one, but I generally don't like how it estimates distances and signals. Also the appearance is so congested on a very small screen.

Buy both. F16 Pros Agile Fast Variety of weapons Simple and easy cockpit most used to it from bms Cons Little fuel Bad rwr (does the job) Moderate radar (not wow) Will take time to complete got to be patient and enjoy what you have JF17 Pros Fancy cockpit Agile Wow weapons Almost complete module Nice rwr Cons Slow (f18 like) Short range

It seems that ppl already did some work. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiozfiQ9aDlAhUM_qQKHX75Cd0QFjAOegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw2tboNHWoy1jhKYZY4IS11U&cshid=1571235763127

Firstly, thanks for the early access on the Viper module, it's been fun flying it. I actually hope after getting the viper up and running to a certain acceptable level, some air to air missiles guidance logic improvement will be implemented. Also, the no escape zone doesn't seem to be working when planes are running away in supersonic speeds, it actually only work when planes are below 0.8M.

According to the range we saw at around 25k altitude, it's somewhere between the aim120b & c.

I'll tell you, before, you could beat the aim54 with maneuvering, pulling high g would make it overshoot. Now, it's different, you notch it, then it'll make an unrealistic turn that such a heavy airframe with small control surfaces and large draggy cross section without losing speed or going through high angle of attack, it'll just immitate a small agile r77, then you'll beam and wait for it close, I actually tested pulling up to 10gs with an empty mig29s the missile ignored and turned pulling over 40g and hit me, I tried that like 100 times and was only successful once. Summaring, the missile practically pulls over g with almost no angle of attack, the missile will track you even if you notch it and go out of the seeker site, the missile doesn't lose much speed at low altitude, it actually looks less draggy than an aim120. Otherwise, it's good, they just need to fix the g limit, angel of attack and drag. The off sight tracking is applicable for all missiles.

I understand, but that was just an observation for something that I've done before, structure flexibility and coanda are crucial factors. It's not about the aim 54, I guess it's designed ok with some minor flows, as it's a rigid structure. But the aim 120 is flexible and that's why ppl are complaining about it being draggy especially while turning. Flexible structures are different, imagine that it turns in air like a fish in the water (not exactly but an example). Even if they decline, I'll send them my previous university work, they may find it useful and start to account for it slowly.

I believe you're right, I'll toss them an email with some ideas and basic calculations. For sure they have engineers, but what I noticed was obvious. For example if the Phoenix or the R33 or 37 turn so hard with such a solid structure, the coanda effect and drag won't be able to hold the missile in its path it'll simply sink in the air. Thats why they have g-limiters in the R33 & 37 for example dunno about the Aim 54. Also some designs with longer fins like the R77 and Mica is mainly done to exploit the coanda effect and enhance the missile maneuverability. The Aim 120 design is made thin and flexible to enhance the energy conservation and rang, A sneaky TWS shot with an Aim 120 is deadly. Well, regardless, you're right, I'll write to them and see. Thanks for the reply.

Hello, I'll go straight forward to the subject, I actually like missiles drag modeling (maybe guidance can evolve slowly), but I feel that the coanda effect isn't being taken into consideration, also I'm not sure if the missiles structure flexibility and drag coefficient change while turning is that accurate. I've done some testing, according to my calculations the Aim 54 was able to pull over 40gs to intercept a maneuver, also the Aim 120 for example was losing so much energy while turning, those numbers are affected by the coanda effect and structure flexibility that will actually reduce the drag area thus maintaining more energy. Well, I'm a mechanical engineer, I believe I may be able to produce (no promises) mathmatical mideling for the missiles structure flexibility, coanda effect and drag formulas based on the previous variables. If my work will be taken seriously, I can begin and hopefully may be able to contribute. What do you think?

Yeah that work too. But only for 1 missile fired. You gotta be good to do it like that consistently. Nice skill, what's the altitude you normally stay at for the best notching results?

The real problem with aim54 is in the multiplayer. The lag doesn't allow you to take the maneuver at the correct timing. For example, if you pull a high g with j11a before 1 bar you're actually already dead but you haven't been notified yet. Long time ago (FC2) the aim 54 couldn't pull so much g, but now it appears to be capable of tracking targets pulling 9g, therefore, now your evasive timing against the aim 54 has to be extremely accurate, also you must pull while being at best cornering speed. I believe the 54 will be fixed sooner or later as it doesn't seem to lose much speed while turning, and it actually taking an illogical turn for its speed and shape, the coanda effect wont be able to hold an object that heavy moving that fast with such small control surfaces. For the time being consider it a fast amraam and try to account for the lag, turn 2 seconds before the appropriate timing or what ever timing that works with your connection.