Viper33 Posted July 21, 2024 Posted July 21, 2024 (edited) 8 hours ago, ACS_Dev said: We aren't that deep in the weeds yet. As it stands the AIM-120C in DCS does not have a boost phase at all. The weapons file I referenced states that the AIM-120 has a boost phase for initial propulsion and then a sustain phase for maintaining energy. The AIM-120B in DCS has this but the C gets rid of it completely. We have an official Distribution A government document stating that this is wrong. As it stands, who in their right mind would approve an "upgrade" that makes the main missile for their air force both weaker and heavier? It makes no sense whatsoever. The C doesnt have a sustain phase, it's boost only. It's probably just mislabeled in the files. If it didnt have a boost phase it would not get up to speed at all. Edited July 21, 2024 by Viper33
ACS_Dev Posted July 21, 2024 Author Posted July 21, 2024 11 minutes ago, Viper33 said: The C doesnt have a sustain phase, it's boost only. It's probably just mislabeled in the files. If it didnt have a boost phase it would not get up to speed at all. I have linked the files, there is no boost phase, instead it has a slightly lengthened sustain (marsh) phase. A sustain phase is still propulsion, just not meant to make the missile increase velocity as much as the boost phase. "Got a source for that claim?" Too busy learning the F-16 to fly it, Too busy making missions to play them Callsign: "NoGo" "Because he's always working in the editor/coding something and he never actually flies" - frustrated buddy Main PC: Ryzen 5 5600X, Radeon 6900XT, 32GB DDR4-3000, All the SSDs. Server PC: Dell Optiplex 5070, I7 9700T 3.5GHz, 32GB DDR4-2133. Oculus Quest 3.
Default774 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 On 4/23/2024 at 9:20 PM, ACS_Dev said: At least in terms of raw power, the AIM-120B is likely the superior missile by a fairly wide margin. If the AIM-120C retained the AIM-120B's boost phase and added the more powerful, longer sustain phase (from the C-5's extended rocket motor) the total thrust units would be about 2016.6, an increase of more than 23%. Taking this new information into account, it is not possible to determine what AIM-120C ED is modeling. It's too messed up to be firmly decided upon. In terms of pure kinematics, the AIM-120B is probably the superior missile, something that does not make any sense at all. Hi, I am not sure how you could possibly come to this conclusion looking at the 120C and 120B we have in the game. The 120C is notably faster (and obviously has less drag). 120c120b.acmi
DSplayer Posted January 18 Posted January 18 I'm also unsure how the conclusion that we have a C-3 and not a C-5 was achieved considering if it were a C-3, the motor would be the exact same as the AIM-120B that we have in-game which isn't the case as stated by you. - The motor total impulse of the 120B is 105211 N while the 120C we have in-game has a total impulse of 117629 N this is all while the 120C is single stage. - While the warhead is basically copy-paste, the C-4 improvement to the warhead doesn't specifically mean the warhead is smaller or larger and could just mean that the warhead is improved in a manner such as improved reliability. - The 3D model is indeed incorrect as it is missing the shorter control section but this is an art thing and doesn't have a direct impact on the performance since it is an art error. In-game control section Spoiler What it should look like: Spoiler 1 Discord: @dsplayer Setup: i7-8700k, GTX 1080 Ti, 32GB 3066Mhz, Saitek/Logitech X56 HOTAS, TrackIR + TrackClipPro Resources I've Made: F-4E RWR PRF Sound Player | DCS DTC Web Editor Mods I've Made: F-14 Factory Clean Cockpit Mod | Modern F-14 Weapons Mod | Iranian F-14 Weapons Pack | F-14B Nozzle Percentage Mod + Label Fix | AIM-23 Hawk Mod for F-14
Northstar98 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 @DSplayer @Default774 Well this is confusing - if it were a C-5 all along, why the change of name from AIM-120C-5 to AIM-120C in the loadout list? Modules I own: F-14A/B, F-4E, Mi-24P, AJS 37, AV-8B N/A, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070S FE, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.
Default774 Posted January 18 Posted January 18 (edited) 3 hours ago, Northstar98 said: @DSplayer @Default774 Well this is confusing - if it were a C-5 all along, why the change of name from AIM-120C-5 to AIM-120C in the loadout list? I have no idea why -5 was removed from the name, but Its worth noting that it was only labelled as a C-5 for a year or two, before that it was also named as an unspecified 120C. Perhaps @Chizh could provide some insight on why the -5 suffix was removed? Edited January 18 by Default774
DCS FIGHTER PILOT Posted May 11 Posted May 11 Well regardless of what is actually going on with respect to this, it would be nice (given certain upcoming “advanced” modules) to get more modern versions of the AMRAAM.
skywalker22 Posted May 11 Posted May 11 3 hours ago, DCS FIGHTER PILOT said: Well regardless of what is actually going on with respect to this, it would be nice (given certain upcoming “advanced” modules) to get more modern versions of the AMRAAM. I doubt there is any publicly known information about it. It would be amazing though. Which also means we would also need a missile from the red side as a counter part.
Recommended Posts