missile update??

[IronMike]

4 hours ago, eatthis said:

we normally like to operate at 35k, last night we had 8 chinese bombers coming in for a shipping strike at 5k. i DID get tws lock at 170 whcih really surprised me but it was patchy and i really didnt fancy our chances of making those shots from that high. we went down to 10k ish iirc and took 2 head on shots each (long story) from 20 miles or so. thats when i noticed the 2nd shot everybody fired going stupid

 

that will likely be fixed in the coming hotfix, I fired 95nm on 6 Tu160 (both me and them in the danger zone), all 6 missiles hit, even high off-bore.

[eatthis]

9 hours ago, IronMike said:

that will likely be fixed in the coming hotfix, I fired 95nm on 6 Tu160 (both me and them in the danger zone), all 6 missiles hit, even high off-bore.

So it is a thing andnot just a coincidence? Ok, whats the problem?

[IronMike]

2 hours ago, eatthis said:

So it is a thing andnot just a coincidence? Ok, whats the problem?

As we did not experience anything like that after fixing the guidance issues, it may very well have been a coincidence. We did nothing to address that actively, and neither knew or discovered it to be a thing before your post, which was only after we adjusted the guidance issues. So, unless you may re-experience it on a reproducible basis after the hotfix, I think we can forget about it for the time being.

[Zaphael]

50 minutes ago, IronMike said:

As we did not experience anything like that after fixing the guidance issues, it may very well have been a coincidence. We did nothing to address that actively, and neither knew or discovered it to be a thing before your post, which was only after we adjusted the guidance issues. So, unless you may re-experience it on a reproducible basis after the hotfix, I think we can forget about it for the time being.

I encountered the same guidance issue where the missile goes stupid for some reason.

It happens after the first TWS missile has failed to connect for whatever reason. The 2nd and 3rd TWS shots will then not guide, even after manually dropping the TID picture by using PAL and then PLM. 

The 2nd and 3rd shots will still show the countdown, but missile goes straight. 

[DSplayer]

16 hours ago, IronMike said:

that will likely be fixed in the coming hotfix, I fired 95nm on 6 Tu160 (both me and them in the danger zone), all 6 missiles hit, even high off-bore.

Do you mind sending a Tacview? I would like to compare the updated missile to what they do now.

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, DSplayer said:

Do you mind sending a Tacview? I would like to compare the updated missile to what they do now.

I've posted tacviews for known rl tests in the feedback thread, should be one page before the last one.

Here's the link, if you want to see the mk60, it is a couple posts below.
 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by IronMike

[Spurts]

that Mk60 one....

[eatthis]

6 hours ago, IronMike said:

As we did not experience anything like that after fixing the guidance issues, it may very well have been a coincidence. We did nothing to address that actively, and neither knew or discovered it to be a thing before your post, which was only after we adjusted the guidance issues. So, unless you may re-experience it on a reproducible basis after the hotfix, I think we can forget about it for the time being.

ah ok, i put it down to an interesting coincidence. what were you reffering to when you said youre gonna fix it next patch?

 

5 hours ago, Zaphael said:

I encountered the same guidance issue where the missile goes stupid for some reason.

It happens after the first TWS missile has failed to connect for whatever reason. The 2nd and 3rd TWS shots will then not guide, even after manually dropping the TID picture by using PAL and then PLM. 

The 2nd and 3rd shots will still show the countdown, but missile goes straight. 

thats not quite teh same as we experienced.  we rippled fired 2 phoenix (so 3-4 seconds between launches) and the 2nd 1 went stupid before the 1st was due to go active. it was probably sjust a coincidence but il keep an eye on it in future

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, eatthis said:

what were you reffering to when you said youre gonna fix it next patch?

The current guidance issues that resulted in turn overcompensation, making the missile bleed its speed beyond reason. This is not a wholesome fix yet, because the guidance will only be complete once fully migrated to the new API, but an adjustment that leads to major improvements in overall performance and a much more natural guidance behavior.

[Gungho]

On 2/2/2022 at 7:57 AM, IronMike said:

The amraam is smaller and more sleek, the phoenix is huge - naturally down low it slows down much faster. If you want it to be effective down low (what are all the Tomcats doing down low I wonder though..? ), you basically should make sure that you launch it so that the motor burns all the way to the target, which ofc decreases its range significantly.

Just because something is huge doesnt necessarily mean its going to slow down faster. I shoot rifles in real life and a higher caliber bullet like a .338 lapua magnum is going to retain energy+velocity at distance much better than a .223 or even a 6.5 creedmoor .260 Remington. The huge aim54s should retain energy much better than it is. You want a combination of weight and drag in fact. After reading this thread it seems like the update was made based on an opinion that the missile was overperforming and not made based on real world data? Your points made in your comments are true but i feel that they are over exaggerated with distances and engagement criteria. The same could be said with this patch.  The missile was neutered too much and now it is underperforming simple as that unless this patch was made based on real world data?

 

Basically if a heavy and big piano was dropped off a balcony its going to fall at the same i initial rate as a pen right? 9.8m/s^2? Only thing is drag to worry about generally that would make the pen hit the ground faster. The same is with a missile but actually the phoenix is going to retain its speed better than an amraam. So my basic “opinion/feelings”based on watching videos and me watching it launched last night is that a medium range missile amraam has better Pk than a long range aim54 at the same distance to target and closure rate.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Gungho

[near_blind]

2 minutes ago, Gungho said:

unless this patch was made based on real world data?

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

It didn't match the numbers in the white paper based off NASA test shots before the patch. Now it more closely matches the numbers in the white paper. I do look forward to the .338 Lapua derived AIM-54 kinematics report. 

[Gungho]

3 minutes ago, near_blind said:

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

It didn't match the numbers in the white paper based off NASA test shots before the patch. Now it more closely matches the numbers in the white paper. I do look forward to the .338 Lapua derived AIM-54 kinematics report. 

Wow okay i stand corrected. If they are using this real world data then i guess the aim54s are as they should be. However, it is now a fact that they are now completely outmatched by the aim120c as far as energy retention and long range shots is concerned. Maybe the other missiles in the sim are over-performing too.

[NeedzWD40]

1 minute ago, Gungho said:

However, it is now a fact that they are now completely outmatched by the aim120c as far as energy retention and long range shots is concerned.

I gotta say, that's pretty impressive! How'd you manage to send an AIM-120 out to 90nmi?

[LanceCriminal86]

14 minutes ago, Gungho said:

Just because something is huge doesnt necessarily mean its going to slow down faster. I shoot rifles in real life and a higher caliber bullet like a .338 lapua magnum is going to retain energy+velocity at distance much better than a .223 or even a 6.5 creedmoor .260 Remington. The huge aim54s should retain energy much better than it is. You want a combination of weight and drag in fact. After reading this thread it seems like the update was made based on an opinion that the missile was overperforming and not made based on real world data? Your points made in your comments are true but i feel that they are over exaggerated with distances and engagement criteria. The same could be said with this patch.  The missile was neutered too much and now it is underperforming simple as that unless this patch was made based on real world data?

 

Basically if a heavy and big piano was dropped off a balcony its going to fall at the same i initial rate as a pen right? 9.8m/s^2? Only thing is drag to worry about generally that would make the pen hit the ground faster. The same is with a missile but actually the phoenix is going to retain its speed better than an amraam. So my basic “opinion/feelings”based on watching videos and me watching it launched last night is that a medium range missile amraam has better Pk than a long range aim54 at the same distance to target and closure rate.

 

You're not the only long range shooter on the block. The ballistic coefficient of the bullet itself plays a large part in how that energy is retained, and not all previously "popular" long range bullets actually have that great of a BC. Case in point, the .50 BMG for a while was somewhat pressganged into being a long range sniper round, yet for most things it's easily outclassed by the .338 LM. Longer, skinnier bullets have less drag and tend to be more stable. The .338 LM is a longer and narrower bullet than the typical .50 BMG ball or even match bullet, has less weight, and yet is a more stable and accurate round with excellent BC. There are other bullets in .224 that easily do 1k plus yards, and some 6.5mm bullets do better than others. Length, diameter, and bullet shape are all part of it. And if you haven't looked at the back of the Phoenix it's a straight body from behind the nosecone to the end, it doesn't have a boat-tail like a bullet. That reduces the missile's drag coefficient as well, which has been illustrated in the discussions about the plume effect while the motor is burning reducing drag. No burning motor, more drag.

The NASA data shows that the Phoenix is a big missile with not a great "ballistic coefficient", and once the motor is down that drag catches back up.

[eatthis]

13 hours ago, IronMike said:

The current guidance issues that resulted in turn overcompensation, making the missile bleed its speed beyond reason. This is not a wholesome fix yet, because the guidance will only be complete once fully migrated to the new API, but an adjustment that leads to major improvements in overall performance and a much more natural guidance behavior.

ok thanks, any rough eta on the api update?

[IronMike]

53 minutes ago, eatthis said:

ok thanks, any rough eta on the api update?

No, sorry, that is not in our hands. The recent changes however bring it already very close to rl performance with a much improved guidance - so the wait will be much easier now.