But like I’ve stated on other threads, the AIM-4F/G missiles are extremely nerfed ingame compared to what they should be historically, the AIM-4G (which is the better of the 2 right now) should be able to turn 27Gs according to the spreadsheet and stat shark, is ingame limited to something like 11 gs because it’s not allowed to pull more than 9º of AoA (a value the PID controller won’t even get near), should have more than triple the field of view it currently has at launch, have an all aspect seeker instead of a rear aspect seeker, not inexplicably explode after travelling 12km, and should be slightly faster at launch. Meanwhile the 4Fs have the same problems as the G’s but even less manoeuvrability, lose lock within 150 meters of the target (although to be fair, that seems a bug for ALL pulse guided missiles), and are missing the ECCM/anti chaff circuits.
And that’s just the missiles, there’s loads of other things that aren´t working properly on the 106a. I wouldn’t mind a BR increase to 10.0 or 10.3 if at least most of the problems were fixed.
The buffs and subsequent new placement at a higher BR will make the plane less strong, as you’ll just get flared by aware players. I will not mind the changes if they represent how the plane was really like. I still had fun with the plane at BR 10.7 uptiers.
My point with that post is to show that those missiles are not as useless as some people make it out to be. It needs some thought put in it before launch, rather than gorilla smashing the launch key at whatever moves in the field of vision.
The Aim-4Gs can pull into shots that a 9B would simply overshoot.
He’s got a point though, something like a Venom or Yak-23 shouldn’t see planes that can go 1440 KMH IAS.
the fact that no one said it can’t hit stalling targets throws all your posts in the water (and no, useless doesn’t mean it can’t hit stalled out targets)
It 100% could be 9.7. 1) It literally outruns the lightning I’m pretty sure but instead of being trash at turning it can turn very sharp. 2) It has the best gun in the game on it arguably. 3) Missiles being bad is the standard for any 9.3 besides the yak 38.4) It also 4 missiles not just 2 alongside the niche ability for all aspect.
The players using it are just dying repeatedly by trying to do the same extremely aggressive maneuvers to catch someone it’s the same story with the f3h2
To be fair it’d require a lot more skill rather than the other 9.7s like the harrier or T2 who just throw out their unavoidable missiles
Point to make: You’re going too slow, the missile ran out of energy before it hit the bomber and you’re launching up at the bomber, should be at a higher altitude than the Me-264 and going AT LEAST Mach 1.
3km head-on launch range is too far against a ww2 bomber? and i need to be above mach 1 to hit something flying at like 300kmh? and also at higher altitude?
if i need all that to hit an me264 then i can’t imagine what conditions i need to hit jets.
sure lol.
Not my fault you don’t know how to use the Aim-4F. All my head-on kills with the Aim-4F are launching from a higher altitude while going AT LEAST MACH 1. The Aim-4Gs don’t have this requirement as they start maneuvering pretty instantly, but the Aim-4Fs do and their seeker has a smaller range so they lose lock easier hence they need a higher launching speed to actually have the energy to turn.
I have several shorts on my youtube channel showing my Aim-4Fs at work. Here’s the very first short I uploaded showing just that:
9.7 BR would be acceptable so long as the flight model (currently very bad) is corrected to reflect how this is the fastest single engine fighter to ever exist. It’d be a little rough with how the missiles aren’t great, but workable at that BR. Preferably they should also fix the behavior of the missiles and internal weapons bay as well as the FM so it’s less of a struggle at a proper BR of 9.7.
Don’t pretend that just because it’s a WW2 bomber it should be easier to hit at the same conditions. Some jets will be an easier target than the WW2 bomber.
This is at 4km alt:
The flight model is underperforming a bit at supersonic speed and high altitude (VNe in particular should be mach 2.5), but i wouldn´t call it very bad; I haven’t gone through every published chart in the manual to confirm it, but if anything it seems accurate enough to expose unrealistic performance of some other planes, like mig 21-mf at altitude or some top tier planes at mach 2+.
As for the ww2 bomber example, note that the aim-4f currently loses lock within 150m of the target and thus can’t make final corrections on a maneuvering target, and that it’s being fired in a head on collision, which has a much smaller target area than a snap up or broadside launch. Even in the pve air arcade assault mode, where the targets are non maneuveuring bomber formations, i get noticeably much better results if i fire the missiles from below or above the target instead trying to fire at them at the same altitude in a direct head on.
Gunning something down isn’t always super viable. Honestly, I’m starting to think Aim-4G/Fs are actually better than Aim-9Bs, at least for the F-106’s purposes.
Lets remember that this vehicle faces F106A and put on a really good fight (the closest one i recalled)
Besides that,you can out turn anything i guess?But its has such a bad engine you wont be able to regain all the speed you lost during a dogfight to survive after you pull out of one
its legit a Draken but USA version,i dont see nothing wrong tbh
Sure maybe the F106A can be quite good in good hands at 9.3 but it should be 10.0 either
I do think that MAYBE if its 9.7 like the Draken,it wouldnt hurt nobody
