i don’t,… it’s a technology matter,… the seekers of today, vs 10 years old ones are night & day.
MICA-EM is trashed because of it’s seeker in game.
and you’re telling me that it doesn’t matter?
It’s true that those 2 missiles are not in the same class, but yeah it’s only logical for meteor to come alongside aim 120d especially since we probably won’t know anything about aim260 for the next 10 year.
thats not what i meant
what i mean is that most ppl that ask for historical match making, for example, do so by they want to sealclub something
german mains wanting historical matchmaking so that they can sealclub in the Tiger
US mains wanting historical match making so that they can sealclub in the F-15A/ F-14A
what i mean is that those ppl only advocate for histroical matchmaking, in this example, as long as it benifits them
1 Like
that’s why you basically cut off the only question that made the link with the technolical matter i have, answered to me with only the cut off part (which, once “cut off” and “out-of-context” could be interpreted like you did) ?
from all of that i’m forced to answer.
if you were honest there, you would reckon, that i was not specifically going for a historical match making kind of thing,…
all i’m asking for is to introduce newer missile depending on their service date,… because of technological matters about seekers, last of which would be completely made-up [i assume gaijin doesn’t really care anymore].
like today, we have 1 missile having a better seeker, and it creates more forum spam than the “inefficient” range of missile, and all other missiles shares the same value.
it’s a problem,… but if we go with “true” values, some will be extraordinary killing missiles, and others would be simply trash,… most because we would be unable to prove Gaijin how wrong it is.(classified stuff)
In terms of an in-game context, and an assumption the map sizes and overall seeker performance doesnt change. They actually probably are. Slightly different pros and cons, and I couldnt find a good answer the other day on what the average LSZ is for the Aim-120D, but its probably not that far off the typical “long ranged BVR” we have in-game in most matches. So both missiles would for the most part probably be relatively reasonably matched in BVR, with the Meteor having the upper hand in long-medium range BVR and due to the higher initial speed and I beleive better maneuverability, the Aim-120D would have the upper hand in short-medium range BVR and in WVR. Given the latter is the most typical for WT ARB, there is a possibility it would be the better of the 2.
The only edge case is Air Sim, where Meteor would really be able to show its full strength, but Gaijin doesnt care about that mode, so it wont influence if/when things are added.
As a final note, what do you add to the Gripen E and Typhoon to match the Aim-120D short of giving them both Aim-120D which im fairly certain hasnt be fitted to either yet (unless you just made Aim-120C8 identical to Aim-120D)
I do think the meteor will be far more efficient at killing people who are running away compared to the AIM120. So, in the beginning of matches were périple are jousting and turning back to kinematically evade missiles coming their way from 50ish km away would be deadly to those player. It’d be the case with the 120D, but I don’t think it will be to the same extent
Yeah, Meteor wont be kinematically defeatable within 100km with a good launch. But that might be the only significant advantage it gets, assuming the Aim-120D doesnt keep the current placeholder AMRAAM seeker with no changes and the meteor got a C&P of the MICA seeker with no changes
Afaik the meteor is slower at short range but keeps its top speed far longer than the amraams due to being ramjet, so it seems to me they’d play a pretty different role
Yeah they do, but if the average firing distance is still 20-30km, how much of a difference is a debate to be had.
The question really is
- Do seekers get buffed at all?
- Does map size get increased?
Those could radically shift which one is better
2 Likes
Well map size should be increased if they wanna add new missiles without them being pointless, but Gaijin is Gaijin so we don’t know
We’ve needed larger maps for 2-3 years, im not really holding my breath
6 Likes
We’ve got a few « bigger maps » as of recently (still limited to 128x128 approximately I believe) with the matchmaking putting less and less smaller maps in the past 1-2 years.
With meteor we’d indeed need at least 160-200km to fully utilize them tho I agree
1 Like
oh yes, i would love/kill to have those.
1 Like
Eh… no larger than we have had in Sim for years, and even there Ive always thought the maps have been too small and in that gamemode we also generally have far lower map density ontop of the larger map sizes
And even if the maps themselves are that large, due to the stupidity of the spawn points, much of that is actually wasted
Take for example the new “bigger” map. The Falklands:
We have airspawns, they could have moved the air spawn points much further away, actually making a bigger map… but instead, they are actually not that far away from each other due to keeping the airpsawns next to the AFs, which are inturn, 10ish km in from the map edge, and most of the map is deadspace
1 Like
we could also see 2 spawn per teams and forced team split in half in each corners.
With air spawns. Im not entirely sure why they dont just spread people out across the entire breadth of the map, either individually or spawning in in groups of 2-4. Actually make use of the entire 128km x 128km map. Though switching the maps to be diaganol instead instead square does up the seperate from around 120km to more like 180km
With a hard spawn point like an AF, yeah, I would have 2-3 AFs spread across the map
1 Like
bread
5 Likes
Bro is reinventing sim EC maps lol
he is not spain has done that in EC since ever
French auto correct spotted :D
1 Like