ok guys I have an idea
currently the newer the amraam, the worse it is
what about idk… PREHISTORIC AMRAAM?!?one!!1!11???oneone!!!
ain’t there AIM-120 or something? ultra old, medieval even. Not A, B, C, D model bcuz apparently they are trash and US of A is the greatest marketing lie ever. Just plain AIM-120, the megamissile. Imagine the AoA, range and notch resistance… jesus that would be kinda op wouldn’t it???
ong
more like, 120a C tier
120c and 120d D tier
there is the prototype AIM-120 from 1982
The specific tool you are using is not an accurate simulation in the slightest. It can only be used in the relative comparison of missiles, and even there it often fails to be consistent with actual in-game testing. This is because the missile’s PID controller isn’t even used, which nearly erases the unique behavior of the missile. What it is doing isn’t an iterative simulation of a missile; it’s plugging numbers into a formula which is calculated only once.
PID terms are extremely important especially for long range. Missiles with the same ∆v, motor configuration, mass, drag etc, launched with the exact same parameters, but with different PID terms, will have drastical differences even against non-maneuvering target. This program, however, is basically same as launching a ballistic missile on a fixed course.
this is prob the most pointless thing iv read in a while since it has nothing to do with what i was even talking about in my post, no matter the path the missile takes the range on the stat card is simply physically impossible with the given thrust on the missile no amount of PID changes can make that possible. also we already know from in game testing that the Aim120C and D fly the EXACT SAME anyways.
Except, looking at missile chart at least, 120D shares PID with previous AMRAAMs?
the United States doesn’t have a good top tier jet, but at least they have one of the weakest missiles in the game ^^
Statshark does have PID values, theres just other reasons why its not accurate.
Statshark doesn’t properly handle how time to hit multipliers work, or seeker accuracy, or CMtoStab information. And that’s just numbers that are known directly tied to missiles. Theres no guarantee of the accuracy to how the game handles some of the numbers anyways.
Idk, I feel like the F-16C is the closest thing to a Swiss Army Knife that they have. That little bugger can do it all
15CGE is pretty good too
Can’t wait for the AIM-260 to be worse than a AIM-7E
So they just increased the weight of the AIM-120D, doesn’t that make it objectively worse than the C5 given how useless GNSS is?
No but it has increased battery life like the new Apple phone so it must be better
And it is more blue than the aim-120c
Always nerf. So boring thats mean its dead already. Its ture GAIJIN HATE US tree.
No better seeker, no improve Dl. No nothing!!! Why they think more modren variant are useless then previos model.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Actually fr. @Smin1080p_WT who is even making these decisions? do you people really believe a newer missile would be worse in every way to an older one?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
They said its would be good then C-5. But now I dont see any thing good then they said befor Dev open.
So its lie.