simonmiller416

I basically made some adjustments to the AIM-174B, such as drag cd, booster, and sustainer etc. This way it can reach a top speed of M3.5 when climbing to a glide altitude of about 24,000 meters (it may exceed this speed when starting a dive, but not by much) I also changed it to AHM, and it can be launched at a maximum range of about 340KM (according to the wiki data, the maximum working range of AIM-174 is between 240-400, so I took an intermediate value). Secondly,Seeker Range is change to 35km (I couldn't find precise data, so I made some extensions based on the common fact that AIM-120 seeker is usually 25km). Based on these adjustments, the AIM-174's workflow will be as follows: 1. Launch at the radar's maximum serch/track range and climb to glide altitude; 2. Utilize "midcourse correction" to simulate trajectory correction by an E-2 or other data link node before radar activation; 3. In the final 35km, terminal guidance will be provided by its own radar. I conducted multiple shooting tests. At 300km, it had a good interception rate against enemy troops with poor skills who hardly did any "dodge" and its performance was not too exaggerated. （I usually do similar work on all missiles with a range of beyond 200KM） What do you think? The attached file contains my first revised version,feel free to try it out if you'd like... AIM-174B_data.INI

Thanks to Ravenclaw for his outstanding work!!! I've been really looking forward to his unparalleled detail in modeling. So I'm making some minor adjustments to AIM-174B. Therefore, I made some other adjustments to the testing environment. For example, I installed an Aegis system on Block3 FA18 that can lock targets at a distance of 400 nm. My targest is Su-35s flying 200km away. They will fly in relative or tangential directions to help me complete the test. I will launch the AIM-174 at an altitude of 10,000 meters and a speed of about Mach 1 to ensure that they are in excellent condition.

won't be a problem, I almost immediately dropped my version after getting Ravenclaw one lol

In SF2, I think it will most likely just be a bigger AIM-120 yeah... Even so, I think if I have time I will do several data simulations and shooting tests for it. While it has unparalleled range, it is large, and its drag and weight will affect the carrier's capabilities.

ODA(actually quite like rangers i think)

so...errrr...about location thing...

In fact, we usually cannot tolerate any missing screws in Ravenclaw's work

The upcoming stuff

This topic coincides with a recent idea I've been thinking about. I'm planning to add Special Forces to my modding list soon. Basically, they'll be Green Berets ODA in 10s-20s style. I plan to equip them with MAAWS and other gadgets, as well as "launchable" smoke grenades to mark targets from the ground. (yeah,I am also a fan of US SOF) I made those basic models in the "American BlackHawk Pack", they are not super detailed, but I think they are good enough for a flight sim game.

till we get SF3 2 weeks later...

So, I finally chose to create an "invisible" YAW axis and set "ShowMissile=FALSE". Although this is not very rigorous, it ensures that the silo remains vertical and allows the missiles to be launched in all directions, which works well for me. I can say that I've achieved my initial goal, but since I personally feel it's not perfect yet, I think it warrants further discussion. For now, however, it's sufficient. Basically, this is an S-400 system (the HQ-9B missile is a placeholder), currently with 85TE2 launch vehicles and 96L6E acquisition radars. There is still a lot of work to do to complete this set of components.

Yeah,VLS are all working good on my warships, it just not good on land based SAM for me. S-300,S-400,HQ-17A... they are all the same...

I've once again been able to understand how the in-game SAMs work by making Patriot system, and they work fine. However, on systems like the S-300 and S-400 (which tend to be vertically launched), it doesn't seem to work as well. Because they usually have no "YAW axis movement" and launch missiles almost vertically upwards from the launch silo,at this point, Patriot's launcher is much more flexible(only represents performance in the game). Therefore, the specific problems I encountered are: 1.When I set: Silo is up in a right angle, but they can't launch missiles. 2.If I remove YAW and PITCH limitation,and set YawModelNodeName, then they can work just like Patriots (but that doesn't match real life). I want to know if this is just my problem or if the game design does not support it? I think it is more inclined to the former, because I remember that many people's descriptions and pictures confirmed that they were running normally.

Ah,ASAT missile,I remember that. That aim is up, mine is down.

No, it's too late now because I already created a new folder in UE5 to make SF3! Of course, you can make whatever you want, at any time.

And I HATE sometimes they survived...

THAT IS A MUST!!!!!!!!

In addition, I have some ideas, of course, inspired by video games such as the ACE COMBAT series. We can make some land-based ballistic missiles, or launch vehicles,as long as they are ASM, they can become a target in SF2, and players can try several ways to play. For example, destroying them before launch, attempting to intercept them in the early stages of launch, or acting as a "protector" and intercepting enemies that attempt to destroy them.

lol,that is too much meaning.

Basically I hope to make my own version one day,but my RL can't support me to invest all my time in modeling, so you know, 2 weeks. If you want, you can just transplant any cockpit into J-10C mod yourself

Regarding this air-launched ballistic missile, I don't know if there has ever been a similar product in our community. At present, I have basically completed its design based on my own experience. twz has a report on this weapon: China’s JL-1 Air Launched Ballistic Missile’s Official Debut Is A Big Deal ,its range and trajectory are much farther and higher than what we're used to seeing in SF2, so its performance in the game will definitely not be 100% realistic, but it will be fun. If anyone is interested in this and is willing to help me complete the "third-party testing", please DM me.

OK,but I wouldn't recommend this, though. SAM sites are usually laid out by map designers, either based on OSINT data from specific points in timeline, or based on their own knowledge. This is far better than add them in editor.

Now I get it,"add" means you were adding launchers in mission editor by yourself. Radars will not generated just because you "add" an launchers. So what you should look for in the editor are these:"AN/MPQ-53 PAC-2", "AN/MPQ-65A PAC-2", "AN/MPQ-65A PAC-3". But ,yeah, as yakarov79 said, you should not. Just leave it to game engine.

I have no clue, normally the game will automatically generate radar and launchers. Perhaps posting the terrain you are running on would be helpful