So it’s older, not younger.
1 Like
Considering the Game does not use Reallife issues, alot of Stuff ingame would be broken (in a not op way) if they were modelled accurately. It wouldn’t matter if it’s Air or Ground Vehicles. Warthunder basically just represents how a “what if” ××××-vehicle would actually perform.
Yak-141 would drop from the sky after 60s of VTOL, Russian T-34’ engines would overheat in Snow Maps, Panthers would break their Engine & Transmission, R27 would have a hit-rate of 20% and much more
(take it with a grain of salt please)
Ah, yes, wanted to write some different thing, your right
Yeah, that means the AIM-120 is OLDER
1 Like
it was stated that its better than the aim120b but slightly worse than the aim120c
Mistaked, yes
Well, still not a information
On paper R-77 also better than early 120
What does this have to do with 75mm shermans being able to penetrate the abrams? They could definitely give the abrams at least 150mm of turret neck protection without the game being broken…
by who?
Who need sherman, use a machine gun for that)
China officials maybe
1 Like
I get your point but who are we to decide how it should be accurate modelled when we tell Gaijin to fix it over the past 6 years and they do not listen to us at all
The people who they make the game for. If we dont force gaijin to model things correctly, nothing will happen. Consumers always run the company.
OP’s post is so poorly done it should be used as an example of what not to do. Any bit of research could be done and conclude that everything he stated is just a load of bull, like the statements he puts out contradict each other (i.e. “real world superiority over amraam” then “improve overall game balance”).
The reports from the dev server all have been denied, so what would make any difference by coming to forums and posting a horribly 5 minute ai-generated rant that has no sources backing it at all, with all speculative and intangible measurements buzzwords such as “advanced technology”, “sophisticated seeker”, and “true capabilities” without giving any definition to them.
Yes the AAM-4 has problems. Many of which that the Japanese faction enjoyers have already done extensive research, calculations to try and resolve, and submitted all possible sources they can find and report to substantiate changes however, trash posts like these provide, not just little but, no sway on whichever decision the devs will take on trying to fix any of these issues.
6 Likes
yea it was fully ai XD
2 Likes
That’s what a lot of people, including myself, do here in regards to the weaponry and machinery in this game.
1 Like
Are you 14?
1 Like
AAM-4 probably should be better than AMRAAM just down to that it doesn’t make much sense if it’s worse. Why would Japan procure a worse missile that they can carry fewer of when they already procured AMRAAM?
1 Like
OP probably could’ve just took info from the already existing AAM-4 thread that has a great amount of user research or the two bug reports (here and here) that was submitted via bug report website… but has since been rejected.
That being said, I feel you: AAM-4 feels pretty lackluster because there’s a lot of info floating around indicating that it could be better than what it is now.
4 Likes
the only thing is that its a lot of statements and not a lot of actual numbers. Plus the numbers we do have are extrapolated from other known values such as having “range that exceeds the AIM-120-C” or “is built off the AIM-7 body”.