thats how it came to live.
1 Like
If they were like that again, I would be very satisfied
If you have any proof that the AIM-120 is able to fly like that then feel free to report it. I very much doubt that the A/B variants are able to do dogfight turns IRL.
1 Like
lmao the irony
I don’t understand what you mean.
it was this patch
the change wasnt even mentioned in patch notes
this is all that was changed 0.73 to 0.74
3 Likes
I can’t prove it, but for balance reasons this would make a lot of sense. Essentially every Fox-3 missile, except the AIM-54 and Fakour-90, can use its maximum G almost immediately after launch.
1 Like
it was
what do you think they mean with “Drag was corrected”
ok? so where do they mention massive changes in turning performance in the patch notes
lets say we’re back in june when the aim120 released, that was the state of the missile, we couldnt have done crap to nerf it, because both the initial and current maneuverability are based on numbers that doesnt exist, and because we dont know what standards gaijin uses to decide a number we have and wouldve had 0 arguments to stand on for a nerf,
and the nerf itself is even more of a stretch as the amraam can achieve 35gs for a short amount of time and it takes a long time to do so, its the only top tier missile to have this problem.
the reason i say its ironic should be clear now, if you made this statement back then you wouldve been in the same exact situation we are now.
it was a july patch afaik
It cannot be that the AAM-4 is significantly better at close range than all Aim 120s
Thanks :)
yes… it was the patch that I linked
look at the version numbers
1 Like
i wanted to point out that i got the patch flipped around, in august there was the guidance delay fix
You say that, but if you look through this thread (created a year before the missile was even added to the game):
They have some sources in there among the comments that do state some things about it’s maneuverability.
no thats just not true, in that thread there are no sources that would give us an idea of how amraams would pull off the rails or shortly after.
which is what we wouldve need to proove that the amraam was overperfoming or right now underperfoming, there are no numbers that would support the nerf that gaijin did, nor are there numbers that would support it pulling as hard as it does, we know the amraam can achieve a max overload of roughly 30/35 gs, anything other than that was arbitrary on gaijin’s part, which wouldnt be an issue if they actually came out with the math or the reasoning, right now we’re left with the least agile top tier missile by far and its absolutely terrible.
there isnt much to argue anymore we can try to find sources but we really shouldnt need to at this point, when there is a lack of information this large balance should take the forefront.
there are videos, but those arent accepted for bug reports
I think the first step is to fix these 4 reports:
AIM-120A & B - Max range against non-manoeuvring targets too low
AIM-120A & B - Performance against manoeuvring targets too poor
AMRAAM Beamwidth currently too large.
Its stupid that they havent yet
Also operating on a basis that C5 would at a bare minimum continue to match the base A/B performance in all regards unless a source states otherwise, so C5 would probably exceed the first 2 reports, but if its based upon a percentage upgrade over the A/B then buffing the A/B would in turn buff the C5
1 Like
It would be a start if they implemented that
1 Like