well AAM-4 is in the game for how long now? still uses the AAM-4B model
at this point its just neglect
The first ever bug report for wrong model was made 1 day ago by @AAM-3
Thank you for making the bug report, AAM-3.
5 Likes
no problem :D i just wanna know if theres anything that could affect the performance of the missile in BVR? Thanks in advance
Gaijin themselves could have noticed this
turns out they dont even double check their own work
4 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PYQXbAoyYTPd
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OZ3YJewIezxo
found these both 7 months ago
1 Like
O i just looked again, and there was multiple ones that have reported it, but no accepted or anything by the bug report mods
3 Likes
Gaijin: Japan has incorrectly modelled/textured/made stuff = I sleep
Gaijin: USSR now has a counter to their KH-38 spam? = Real sh*t
5 Likes
it’s almost like the whole point is about the helmet and the actual system and not the particular plane
1 Like
sorry I just had to xD
Xeno said it best here with addressing AAM-4:
Standard AAM-4 fixes can make it entirely C-5 equivalent if not slightly better than C-5 IMO.
I don’t know all the details of remaining AAM-4 issues, as that would be Xeno that might know.
My primary expertise in air related matters is cross-analysis, loadouts, and airframe data gathering.
It’s why I compare AIM-120C7/8 to AAM-4B.
That and currently, at least on dev [I can’t speak for live server cause I don’t use it there currently, as I’m waiting to dump my JM research into F-2A] the AAM-4 feels absolutely amazing. It feels like the AIM-120A/B I’ve been using elsewhere just weighing my plane down slightly more while it’s attached.
I even got a 22km frag with it that was rather nice to experience.
4 Likes
AAM-4B can be more closely be compared to the AIM-120D if not better because of it’s tracking since the AAM-4B uses a AESA radar seeker
6 Likes
But we have AIM-120C-5 in game now
Yes, which is not as powerful as people are expecting it to be.
You defeat it the same exact way you defeat all other AIM-120s.
No this is not “brushing it off”, it’s a 20 - 30km range extension via lofting higher and potentially motor improvements.
When AAM-4 came to the game I was confused why C5 wasn’t part of it until all the issues with AAM-4 were there. It was sluggish… like my last memory of AAM-4 before today was the dev server it was first introduced on, and clearly a lot has changed since I last used it cause it feels great on current dev.
I’ve had the F-15JM since the first week or so of that major update, just haven’t gotten the AAM-4s cause needed to dump research into jets and there was nothing to research until Thailand, and now F-2A’s announced.
1 Like
Isn’t the first image a F-4?
It is indeed a F-4, and the pilots are wearing the same helmet as the"HMD" ADTW F-2A
F-2 Should be faster and lighter than F16C, yet its not. WHY?
It’s not lighter than an F-16C, it just uses lighter material compared to the F-16C. It’s bigger in size, and uses the same engine.
also about material do we get the real material in f-2 (RAM - Radar-Absorbent Materials) or gaijin would just skip over that thing. It makes makes diffrence bc theoretically it got 2-3 times smaller radar cross section. In comparisent f-16c got of about 3-5 square meters when f-2a got aprox 1-2 square meters.
Sorry does the anti ship missiles not work or does it just require GTMI lock?
They work. I’ve just seen too many idiots try to lock a ship using ACM PD and not the GTMI radar setting. One only work on moving targets. The other is an IR seeker ASM, Not modeled yet. Also this forum is for the AAM4 missile please just message in F-2 Thread or the JASDF Ordinance Thread