https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/hQX9V3yYZmc1
Also while we are here, ASM-2 is incorrect also on dev its ARH-IOG when its actually IR-IOG (with proof from jp mod.go public info)
I think its explosive mass is also wrong? its like 70kg explosive for a 600kg missile
1 Like
the F-2A’s in their current state is just plain wrong
idk how gaijin managed to fuck it up despite DMM being right there
4 Likes
Correct, it was accepted quickly and there were multiple bug reports on the matter.
And right now against a target 15 - 40km away the AAM-4 gets there sooner compared to AIM-120C-5 @AAM-3
Against a 20km target, both AAM-4 and AIM-120B get to the target at about the same time.
C-5 has a longer range because it lofts more, which slows it down. Even with a more powerful motor it will get to targets in a similar amount of time.
The seeker improvements of AAM-4B/AIM-120C8 [possibly C7 and C6 as well] are currently not necessities when AAM-4 still has some issues left to fix, even if C5 has inaccuracies.
@かがり
DEV IS NOT THE LIVE CLIENT!
Claiming placeholder things are wrong is just duh, they’re placeholder; they’re working on the code for the finished product for the placeholder stuff.
Gaijin knows the ASM-2 is IR guided, they’re finishing the code…
1 Like
Then gaijin should know the F-2A thats currently being added has AAM-4B as well as HMD, Sniper TGP, and if they “know” why havent they corrected it before? or even Just put a “Accepted” tag on the bug report for it?
sometimes not being a corpo bootlicker can make you realise how many mistakes they make
I couldn’t find them but what are the remaining issues for the AAM-4? If i may ask
2 Likes
The pic you have shown with the 63-8501, the pilot is not wearing any HMD but a FHG-2 helmet
F-15J pilot with JHMCS HMD helmet
2 Likes
Never knew 501 changed number
@かがり
Sniper targeting pod is coming to the game.
HMD is not present on F-2A on dev.
And AAM-4B model would be a general inaccuracy. Sometimes missiles are coded correctly but given the wrong model. AIM-9s have had this occur, PL-8s have, and apparently AAM-4. It’s a general mistake.
2 Likes
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.
4 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