DCS: F-14 Development Update - AIM-54 Phoenix Improvements & Overhaul - Guided Discussion

[captain_dalan]

15 hours ago, Wolfman289 said:

Thanks for the reply. What's interesting is that when I try the Final Hour mission, the MiG's really don't turn cold after I fire. They angle themselves, but still are pointed towards my general area. On The Mariana's mission with the JF's, they continue towards me head on, nose hot and fire SD-10's at me and my wingman. I still can't get any AIM54's to hit on either mission, even with the JF's that stay nose hot.

I'd attach some tac views, but I don't have any, sorry!

I just flew the same mission a couple of times, nothing extensive, but the initial impression is that it's not the missile, it's the radar. AWG-9 just drops all the track files as soon as the bandits change their course after firing their own missiles. On the single bandit i did manage to maintain a track, i actually scored a hit from 45.7 miles, angels 36, mach 1.18, on a bandit ay angles 24. mach 0.8 at the time of launch. The missile hit the target at mach 1.60. 

You will have to find a way to maintain the track files, which at the moment i can't help you with, as i haven't done it myself. I haven't flown this particular instant action in a long time, but maintaining tracks wasn't that much of an issue in previous patches on other missions. 4 possible alternatives that come to mind:
1. Get in the RIO seat, and try to hook only two targets at a time - no idea if this will help, as i've never done it myself, so i have no idea if Jester will just hook the rest of the targets as soon as you hop in the front seat again.
2. Fire in STT. Now this instant action has you equipped with Mk60 A's, so you will have to maintain lock all the way to impact. And it's 4 bandits against 2 Fighters, all the bandits equipped with a FOX03 missile, that actually goes above mach 4.3 (you got to love the realism here) while your own missiles struggle to reach mach 3.6. So....yeah, good luck with this mission. 
3. Try to stay bellow the bandits at all times. They start at 35000ft and will climb if you do. They won't stay up when they fire or if you down, so take that into account.
4. The latest update may indeed have broken something about the radar. But i can't confirm or deny that, as i haven't fired on 4 defending targets in a long long time. Back in July last year, this wasn't an issue (the last time i flew this IA), but then again, the AI didn't go defensive after firing back then.....so, who knows?
Good luck and do write if you make progress! 

Edit: here is the tackview of my take. Note, i only changed the plane to A in stead of B, because of.....well, reasons. It's a personal fetish of mine  

EDIT 2:
A video of last July:
 

Tacview-20220905-163221-DCS-September update F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JF17 Mk60 A.zip.acmi

 

2 out of 4, without defending. As opposed to 1 out of 8 now (1 kill in two missions), so maybe it is the defending bandits after all. 

Edited September 5, 2022 by captain_dalan

[Noctrach]

Maybe a bit off-topic but there's some solid guidance magic in that tacview I guess "missile spam diversion" is a pretty good defensive tactic.

With respect to the Phoenix shots though, being higher > being faster. I've seen the new Phoenix get some pretty crazy mileage fired from 38,000+ at mach 0.9. It's not really worth wasting fuel trying to go supersonic right now imo. Not until transonic drag is tweaked anyhow.

Climb as high as you can as fast as you can, lob your missiles, descend back down to denser air for defensive flying and radar lock. You still have the longest stick by a fair margin, but it won't match SD-10/AIM-120Cs in the sub-40 mile domain. 2v4 against 4th gens is gonna be a rough day at the office if you let them get inside that distance.

I feel as a fighter, the Tomcat now doesn't really like the in-between-y altitudes. You are either very high for shots with very long reach, or you are very low where the range collapses and your 20+s burn time and/or sparrows can do decent work.

Below 30,000 feet is a good altitude for the radar picture, not so much for shooting.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Noctrach

[stonewolf393]

Something I am curious about is the max speed in all of these tests. Has anyone been able to hit mach 4.3-5?

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_Authorization_for/bM6eTY5nE1AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aim-54+"mach"&pg=PA1003&printsec=frontcover

 

All of my shots are reaching at most mach 3.2-3.3 from mach 1.1-1.2 launches(12km). The previous white paper had max speed as listed as m4.3-m5. So where did these numbers come from?

 

Edit 1: after force spawning myself at mach 1.6 at 50,000 i am able to get mach 3.7-3.8 in a pitbull launch straight ahead  but so far that is the closest I am coming to 4+

I'll upload some tracks if I can remember how to do that after I run some more flights.

AIM-54 archived report.pdf

Edited September 5, 2022 by stonewolf393

[IronMike]

1 hour ago, captain_dalan said:

I just flew the same mission a couple of times, nothing extensive, but the initial impression is that it's not the missile, it's the radar. AWG-9 just drops all the track files as soon as the bandits change their course after firing their own missiles. On the single bandit i did manage to maintain a track, i actually scored a hit from 45.7 miles, angels 36, mach 1.18, on a bandit ay angles 24. mach 0.8 at the time of launch. The missile hit the target at mach 1.60. 

You will have to find a way to maintain the track files, which at the moment i can't help you with, as i haven't done it myself. I haven't flown this particular instant action in a long time, but maintaining tracks wasn't that much of an issue in previous patches on other missions. 4 possible alternatives that come to mind:
1. Get in the RIO seat, and try to hook only two targets at a time - no idea if this will help, as i've never done it myself, so i have no idea if Jester will just hook the rest of the targets as soon as you hop in the front seat again.
2. Fire in STT. Now this instant action has you equipped with Mk60 A's, so you will have to maintain lock all the way to impact. And it's 4 bandits against 2 Fighters, all the bandits equipped with a FOX03 missile, that actually goes above mach 4.3 (you got to love the realism here) while your own missiles struggle to reach mach 3.6. So....yeah, good luck with this mission. 
3. Try to stay bellow the bandits at all times. They start at 35000ft and will climb if you do. They won't stay up when they fire or if you down, so take that into account.
4. The latest update may indeed have broken something about the radar. But i can't confirm or deny that, as i haven't fired on 4 defending targets in a long long time. Back in July last year, this wasn't an issue (the last time i flew this IA), but then again, the AI didn't go defensive after firing back then.....so, who knows?
Good luck and do write if you make progress! 

Edit: here is the tackview of my take. Note, i only changed the plane to A in stead of B, because of.....well, reasons. It's a personal fetish of mine  

EDIT 2:
A video of last July:
 

Tacview-20220905-163221-DCS-September update F-14A_IA_Marianas_BVR_JF17 Mk60 A.zip.acmi 1.9 MB · 3 downloads

 

2 out of 4, without defending. As opposed to 1 out of 8 now (1 kill in two missions), so maybe it is the defending bandits after all. 

 

@Wolfman289 and @captain_dalan - this particular mission is ultra hard currently, and will be changed to carry -Cs. The main issue with the mission is the 4 jeffs being a single 4ship, which with the new BVR stuff makes them stack hi-lo, and your wingman cannot be really directed to focus on the high or low guys respectively. It is very tough and unfair (while it was completely fine with the old mk60, to which it was tailored when I made it).

Do yourselves a favor, and edit the mission to carry Charlies, I made some more changes which will also make it still a hard, but not such an impossible mission. Not that it is not doable, but your AI wingman just lets you down on this one and you have basically 4 Jeffs teaming up on you like hawks.

All instant action BVR missions will get looked at again in this regard.

I've attached a tacview how a 1 vs 2 fight with Jeffs can work out (not as a guideline, just one possible outcome), and the F-14A still stays on top, but it is hard work. Especially the recommit with Jester looking at the sky or into the water, etc is what makes it tough.

As for the AWG-9, it should, if anything hold tracks better now, if it doesn't something else might be up, but for me, during all my tests (including about 20 runs with this marianas mission), the AWG9 did not show any issues - that is not to say there are none ofc.

Tacview-20220904-133319-DCS-aim54_vs_JF17.zip.acmi

Edited September 5, 2022 by IronMike

[lahsoldier]

@IronMike On your tacview shots you did at 46k what was your loadout/ fuel and was this an air start or did you fly to that altitude?  Having allot of issues getting to that altitude and speed without burning a lot of fuel. 

 Were these set to Ace or Veteran? (Veteran ,which I seem to find to be harder to deal with, preform the split S maneuver almost every shot which seems to be dodging every missile I and others are shooting even when within perfect settings). 

[IronMike]

11 minutes ago, lahsoldier said:

@IronMike On your tacview shots you did at 46k what was your loadout/ fuel and was this an air start or did you fly to that altitude?  Having allot of issues getting to that altitude and speed without burning a lot of fuel. 

 Were these set to Ace or Veteran? (Veteran ,which I seem to find to be harder to deal with, preform the split S maneuver almost every shot which seems to be dodging every missile I and others are shooting even when within perfect settings). 

To get high, you need to climb early on, and step climb is best. Contract climb to 25k (maintain pitch for 350 kts) -> get speed. Climb to 30k -> get speed. Climb to 40k -> get speed. It will cost you fuel ofc, but if you keep above 40k your fuel burning will not be that bad. You need time though. For tests these were mostly airstarts. In most tests I limit myself to either 2 missiles or 1 missile per bandit, except in the tacview I just posted above, I took 6 missiles.

The AI is all set to ace, and some iirc to veteran. I can try some on veteran if you like, or also show you a full climb to the danger zone from take off. If you are unsure if an engagement will unfold, cap high by default. I generally do not cap below angels 32. From there it is not so hard to get really high and still remain fast. And I agree with a previous statement: it is better to be at 45k and launch from m1.0 than to be at 40k and launch from m1.1 ...

 

As an example, in the above mentioned instant action mission "hunting the jeff", you start at 32k. By the time of launch I am usually between 46 and 48k. That is in the B. In the A, with the TF-30s, this will take you longer, you will be slower up there and likely not just as high, but you can get above 40k just fine.

 

Edited September 5, 2022 by IronMike

[Digitalvole]

49 minutes ago, IronMike said:

show you a full climb to the danger zone from take off.

Yes please! 

sorry to interrupt

[Cobra847]

Gents,

Appreciate the passion and discussion and thank you for the great feedback.

A couple of notes and we won't really comment more in-depth on two topics:

re the nozzle exit area: We are aware of this not being "correctly" set and this was (at least for now) intentional per the steps we took during development. We're revisiting this topic, but as of yet it's unclear whether this will change. Without delving into specifics, it's not as easy as setting it to the correct real nozzle exit area without more due diligence. 

Re guidance- we hope to make further improvements in this area, however it requires the help of our partners and moving the missile to the new schema. We'll be driving this topic forwards as quickly as possible. Guidance can have significant effects on kinematics, and over the years both guidance and our subsequent kinematics have changed. Right now, we've chosen to make a missile that is as close as possible aerodynamically - even if guidance isn't perfect yet. This to leave ourselves with the correct foundation for any improvements that should come from guidance, not aerodynamics, possibly at the cost of lessened performance for a time.

Thanks again for all the wonderful discussion and feedback!

Edited September 5, 2022 by Cobra847

[Wolfman289]

@captain_dalanLol, I'm a fan of flying the A over the B as well.

I'll have to try it again and make sure they are changing course. I do know that they have fired at me and it seems they have continued nose hot after they fire, but I'll double check. Thanks for giving it a try and the pointers, I'll mess around later with it.

@IronMike

I've tried the mission a few times with both C variants and have had the same issues as with the A. Both missiles actually perform almost identical to each other and miss. I don't think that I'm loosing track in TWS and it seems the JF's are continuing nose hot the entire time, but I'll double check that they are not breaking off.

 

[stonewolf393]

The issue here it seems is that the 54's are missing top end speed. Any missile I fire either maddog or not is missing about 300-400mph off of m4.3(A was shown to congress as hitting 4.3).  The C was expected to hit m5. Right now all speeds from the 54 are quite slower than what i seems like they should be. I did that mission many times and got a couple kills when firing from 45000ft at m1.5 but both missiles capped out and m3. Running maddog shots at that alt and speed gave me about 3.7-3.8 or so. Regardless the 54-A was shown as hitting  4.3 so regardless we are losing about 400mph

2 minutes ago, Wolfman289 said:

@captain_dalanLol, I'm a fan of flying the A over the B as well.

I'll have to try it again and make sure they are changing course. I do know that they have fired at me and it seems they have continued nose hot after they fire, but I'll double check. Thanks for giving it a try and the pointers, I'll mess around later with it.

@IronMike

I've tried the mission a few times with both C variants and have had the same issues as with the A. Both missiles actually perform almost identical to each other and miss. I don't think that I'm loosing track in TWS and it seems the JF's are continuing nose hot the entire time, but I'll double check that they are not breaking off.

 

 

[JNelson]

33 minutes ago, stonewolf393 said:

The issue here it seems is that the 54's are missing top end speed. Any missile I fire either maddog or not is missing about 300-400mph off of m4.3(A was shown to congress as hitting 4.3).  The C was expected to hit m5. Right now all speeds from the 54 are quite slower than what i seems like they should be. I did that mission many times and got a couple kills when firing from 45000ft at m1.5 but both missiles capped out and m3. Running maddog shots at that alt and speed gave me about 3.7-3.8 or so. Regardless the 54-A was shown as hitting  4.3 so regardless we are losing about 400mph

 

That 4.3 number is from a hearing where it shows the max demonstrated. That is the maximum speed the missile has ever been seen to be going.

One can fairly easily get our missile up to mach 4.3. Here are two shots I made (both missions start at mach 1.2 and 45kft accelerating up to the launch speed to know it's possible). Test was with the A variant.

MK60 Motor -> Mach 4.3

MK-47 Motor -> Mach 4.4

I just threw these together so they aren't rigorous launch conditions, but you can see the missile has demonstrated it can reach mach 4.3.

Max_demonstrated_mk60.acmiMax_demonstrated_mk47.acmi

[captain_dalan]

8 hours ago, Noctrach said:

Climb as high as you can as fast as you can, lob your missiles, descend back down to denser air for defensive flying and radar lock. You still have the longest stick by a fair margin, but it won't match SD-10/AIM-120Cs in the sub-40 mile domain. 2v4 against 4th gens is gonna be a rough day at the office if you let them get inside that distance.

The AMRAAM is "fine".....heck, it's not fine, it's a mess, but at least laws of physics wise, it doesn't pretend to be hypersonic missile. I tested it in the scenarios i did the AIM-54, and it won't start outperforming it till well inside 40, closer to 35 miles (on average, changes in test parameters dependent). The SD-10 though, that's DCS' MiG-15 among missiles right now. I think i need to by the JF-17 just to reverse engineer all the ungodly crimes against aerodynamics were done to it

7 hours ago, IronMike said:

Do yourselves a favor, and edit the mission to carry Charlies, I made some more changes which will also make it still a hard, but not such an impossible mission. Not that it is not doable, but your AI wingman just lets you down on this one and you have basically 4 Jeffs teaming up on you like hawks.
 

Tacview-20220904-133319-DCS-aim54_vs_JF17.zip.acmi 565.34 kB · 4 downloads

Actually i did manage to survive the mission and get all 4 of them, but that was just blind luck. The bandits are set to random, so on one of my hops, 3 of them decided to just fly into my wingman's missiles (which he BTW launched at mach 1.7, 70 miles away) and fired all their SD-10's at him, so just picked up the straggler. 
What other changes should i make to the mission except for changing the loadout? 

2 hours ago, Wolfman289 said:

@captain_dalanLol, I'm a fan of flying the A over the B as well.

I'll have to try it again and make sure they are changing course. I do know that they have fired at me and it seems they have continued nose hot after they fire, but I'll double check. Thanks for giving it a try and the pointers, I'll mess around later with it.

 

 

Mind you, the AI's are set to random, so your iterations will vary greatly. Look at my example above. Sometimes (very rarely) they fly right into the missiles and don't crank at all. 

[Exorcet]

What is the status with AIM-54 loft? I think somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that they will only overloft if launched with an upward attitude, but I'm getting excessive loft angles even in level flight. In fact, I have to pitch down just to get a reasonable looking loft angle. I want to know if I'm the only one with this issue, or if it's universal right now. I've already tried a repair, but the missiles are still shooting up at 60+ degrees on launch.

[stonewolf393]

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

What is the status with AIM-54 loft? I think somewhere in this thread someone mentioned that they will only overloft if launched with an upward attitude, but I'm getting excessive loft angles even in level flight. In fact, I have to pitch down just to get a reasonable looking loft angle. I want to know if I'm the only one with this issue, or if it's universal right now. I've already tried a repair, but the missiles are still shooting up at 60+ degrees on launch.

The missiles are shown in test videos lofting at that, that seems reasonable for a missile wanting to get as high as possible. I just don't think it got the ass to do that though right now. Per JNelson it is possible to hit M4.3 on a launch but to get to the point of being able to do that (without a prestart of 40k at m1.2) you'll pretty much have to take 1 aim54 and full fuel load just to have the thrust to break into m1.3.

[JNelson]

48 minutes ago, stonewolf393 said:

The missiles are shown in test videos lofting at that, that seems reasonable for a missile wanting to get as high as possible. I just don't think it got the ass to do that though right now. Per JNelson it is possible to hit M4.3 on a launch but to get to the point of being able to do that (without a prestart of 40k at m1.2) you'll pretty much have to take 1 aim54 and full fuel load just to have the thrust to break into m1.3.

Yes but you mentioned the mach 4.3 number, that was max demonstrated speed, if you want more realistic values for normal launches look at the NASA simulation results posted in this thread: 

 

[The_Tau]

16 hours ago, IronMike said:

@Wolfman289 and @captain_dalan - this particular mission is ultra hard currently, and will be changed to carry -Cs. The main issue with the mission is the 4 jeffs being a single 4ship, which with the new BVR stuff makes them stack hi-lo, and your wingman cannot be really directed to focus on the high or low guys respectively. It is very tough and unfair (while it was completely fine with the old mk60, to which it was tailored when I made it).
 

I actually managed to beat that mission but I must say, 54A seeker is really a gamble here and you must be lucky. Even if you do everything correctly 54A seeker may just eat the chaff and there it went. 

Basically I made my wingman in trail 50-60 miles and I go alone, climb!! (50k), fire 3 54s (save 1 for later pitbull shots) at 50-60 nms, split S, wait for JF17 to reorganize after first attack, send wingman to engage, then turn around to support him and hope that 54As actually hit something.

I turned MLC off in RIO pit, we fight over water so AWG9 should have much easier job maintain track

ECM makes JF17s fire later so I use that on wingman as well

I am adding tacview

https://we.tl/t-yYdPwE2J0Y

 

(This was my 8th take on this , clear example why C is superior to A, as it should be)

Edited September 6, 2022 by The_Tau

[DSplayer]

5 hours ago, JNelson said:

Yes but you mentioned the mach 4.3 number, that was max demonstrated speed, if you want more realistic values for normal launches look at the NASA simulation results posted in this thread: 

 

For those who want to compare DCS to the NASA simulations results, you have to keep in mind that the NASA simulations seem to use the AIM-54C+ (AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed) which has a heavier initial mass than the AIM-54C that we have now. The AIM-54C we have now seems to be an earlier C variant that is ~23 lbs lighter than the AIM-54C+.

 

When launched at approx. Mach 1.2, 45000 ft, and at a 30° angle, the AIM-54C we have currently hits a peak speed of Mach 3.62 which is a bit shy of what appears to be Mach 3.7-3.9 on the ALSM graphs. The missile launched at 0° was able to actually go faster than the 30° missile by ~0.6-0.7 Mach but according to the ALSM graphs it should be going a bit slower but this could be down to the more complicated simulation that they used when compared to DCS.

 

30° pitch launch:

 

0° pitch launch:

[KlarSnow]

0 Degrees overlayed onto the NASA chart, shows that the missile still doesn't have enough drag. NASA simulation shows the missile decelerates below subsonic in ~55 seconds. Current AIM-54 Decelerates much slower, getting subsonic in the same parameters around 105-110 seconds. Staying supersonic for nearly twice as long. If this was done as an ACM shot, this would actually input more drag on the missile as it is trying to maintain level flight, whereas the NASA shot should have fixed fins thus being ballistic.

The Blue lines are what you are looking at here

And here is the 30 degree shot overlaid. This one wildly does not match the drag profile and seems more to match the 45 degree one, at least in shape. The end result is still that it has a much higher speed further on in its flight than the real one. Some of this may be down to the test parameters, I'm assuming you did this in an ACM shot. I do not know if that has the same control laws (not ballistic, tries to maintain attitude) as what the NASA simulation described (Fins fixed, completely ballistic). It is notable that this shot is actually closer to the NASA Mach than the zero degree profile.

Red line vs the blue tacview curve.

[DSplayer]

1 hour ago, KlarSnow said:

0 Degrees overlayed onto the NASA chart, shows that the missile still doesn't have enough drag. NASA simulation shows the missile decelerates below subsonic in ~55 seconds. Current AIM-54 Decelerates much slower, getting subsonic in the same parameters around 105-110 seconds. Staying supersonic for nearly twice as long. If this was done as an ACM shot, this would actually input more drag on the missile as it is trying to maintain level flight, whereas the NASA shot should have fixed fins thus being ballistic.

The Blue lines are what you are looking at here

And here is the 30 degree shot overlaid. This one wildly does not match the drag profile and seems more to match the 45 degree one, at least in shape. The end result is still that it has a much higher speed further on in its flight than the real one. Some of this may be down to the test parameters, I'm assuming you did this in an ACM shot. I do not know if that has the same control laws (not ballistic, tries to maintain attitude) as what the NASA simulation described (Fins fixed, completely ballistic). It is notable that this shot is actually closer to the NASA Mach than the zero degree profile.

Red line vs the blue tacview curve.

 

Actually making the missile go ballistic, by setting the battery life to zero, allows for the AIM-54 to match the curves of the actual ALSM document. Previously I had used ACM cover up and the missile still tries to guide itself in an optimal manner, especially at 0° pitch, so that it tries to maintain the original pitch it was launched at instead of a ballistic arc. So previously the 0° missile it stays at ~45000 ft for the majority of its life, pulling 1 G, until it eventually runs out of speed and hits the terrain.

 

If launched at 0° pitch, the AIM-54 will start a 0 G dive towards the ocean. This, of course, causes it to plow through thicker and thicker air and the drag will increase until it slams into the ocean.

Spoiler

 

A similar thing happens for the 30° pitch launch since it also proceeds in a 0 G trajectory until it hits the ocean.

Spoiler

 

It seems to fit the bill relatively accurately I'll have to say that.

 

Here I've included both Tacviews.
ALSM First Test.acmiALSM Test 0 Battery.acmi

 

[bobkerman]

null

[DSplayer]

For those that are curious, this is what happens when you try a 45° pitch, zero battery, and ~250lbs of weight shaved off of the empty missile weight.

Spoiler

 

Peak speed of Mach 4.97 with an extremely different trajectory however.

[KlarSnow]

 

Also turned the battery off and did some shots. Bang on the money to the NASA graph with some very slight overperformance that is well within any reasonable margin of error.

I also edited the nozzle exit area to the value proposed (0.04525 m2) And performed the shots again so you can see how much over the NASA data it would perform and why that doesn't appear to at all match reality. Like seriously I was utterly surprised that every shot matched the NASA chart this well. I really don't think thrust vs drag for the missile can be any more accurate in the simulation.

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Edited September 6, 2022 by KlarSnow

[JNelson]

2 hours ago, DSplayer said:

Actually making the missile go ballistic, by setting the battery life to zero, allows for the AIM-54 to match the curves of the actual ALSM document. Previously I had used ACM cover up and the missile still tries to guide itself in an optimal manner, especially at 0° pitch, so that it tries to maintain the original pitch it was launched at instead of a ballistic arc. So previously the 0° missile it stays at ~45000 ft for the majority of its life, pulling 1 G, until it eventually runs out of speed and hits the terrain.

 

If launched at 0° pitch, the AIM-54 will start a 0 G dive towards the ocean. This, of course, causes it to plow through thicker and thicker air and the drag will increase until it slams into the ocean.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

A similar thing happens for the 30° pitch launch since it also proceeds in a 0 G trajectory until it hits the ocean.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

It seems to fit the bill relatively accurately I'll have to say that.

 

Here I've included both Tacviews.
ALSM First Test.acmiALSM Test 0 Battery.acmi

 

It's not sufficient to disable the battery only, because the stability derivatives on this missile model do not appear to be very strong. Having performed the same tests there is a clear effect of induced drag on the missile.

 

Orange here having induced drag and blue having no induced drag or lift.

You must remove the induced drag and lift to get the correct result. As the missile should be stable at zero angle of attack.

Edited September 6, 2022 by JNelson

[cheezit]

So when do we pen an apology to that old troll (nick had something to do with counterstrike if memory serves) that used to post on AIM-54 threads, now that the missile model has been changed more or less to how he thought it should be in terms of kinematics, chaff resistance, etc?

[LanceCriminal86]

22 minutes ago, cheezit said:

So when do we pen an apology to that old troll (nick had something to do with counterstrike if memory serves) that used to post on AIM-54 threads, now that the missile model has been changed more or less to how he thought it should be in terms of kinematics, chaff resistance, etc?

Never, because he was still wrong in most of his assertions and provided abusive and harassing DMs. There's a reason he's not here.