I see, my mistake. Got confused with the odd sentence structure going on.
It still makes zero sense and is quite irrelevant if the Aim-120 gets into active range or is active off the rail.
The Aim-120 is always faster off the rail than the 700lb+ R27ER anyway. The Aim-120 is infinitely harder to defeat over the R27 as it has an onboard radar that signal and return rate intensifies as the closer rate increases.
Lastly the R27ER does not gain the velocity demonstrated irl as it does right off the rail in game especially at low altitude. It is overtly overperforming in terms of immediately and magically reaching top speed at almost all altitudes.
If the MASSIVE telephone pole sized R27ER retains its overperformance, then he is correct, the superior aerodynamics and much smaller size of the Aim-120 will not be able to reach its target over the R-27ER at medium range.
It’s performing VERY accurately according to primary documentation on the missile… if there are any “nerfs” to be had… I don’t know of anything they can do to nerf it. One of the more accurately modeled missiles.
A 700lb+ telephone pole sized missile with obsolete aerodynamics that was never equipped with a higher thrust motor, but only a heavier, longer burning one over the regular R27 means there is no way in hell the missile is going to reach such a velocity off the rail Irl as it does in game, especially at low altitude.
NATO calls it informally as the “Long Burn Alamo” for a reason. Simply extended range version. They do not call it the “Hypersonic Alamo” which reaches top speed off the rail in under 10 second at all altitudes.
Yes, the R27 platform is aerodynamically obsolete and there is not a single newly developed or planned modern missile that uses the same pattern and control surfaces. All modern medium range+ active radar missiles resemble the foundational design of the Aim-120 as well as other Western design philosophies. That includes advanced Chinese long-range missiles.
Oh, so you changed sparrow to balance it but kinda forgot to revert the nerf after ER introduction… Missile which does EXACTLY the same thing now due to ins. Good, you couldn’t sound more biased now.
I understand your frustration with the Aim7 platform, but you do indicate you understand the modelling decisions where initially done in the name balance, correct? You seem to agree.
Yes, there is the possibility that reverting changes due to balance may have been forgotten due to neglect. However, the more probable reason is that being a live game developer comes with many responsibilities, priorities and pressures to pump out new content every business quarter and fix actual broken features while maintaining balance.
There is a high level of crunch in this particular industry you can imagine. I am sure there are many executives that can care less about some missile being able to guide after signal loss from the launching aircrafts radar.
If @k_stepanovich or other developers had the time to ever be biased, they would simply not allow us the ability & privilege to report modelling issues and communicate directly with us in the first place.
It is a privilege to be able to report model issues. It can be taken away. please do remember that.
The Sparrows didn’t have inertial guidance after target illumination dropped afaik until AIM-7P.
I’m glad we actually were able to find primary information on the missile seeing as it’s from the 90s. Feels nice knowing that it’s as accurate as it can possibly get. They reworked the thrust and burn time to properly reflect this which resulted in a buff - bad for balance reasons but hopefully will mean that they are working on getting higher performance fox-3s implemented sooner because of it.
The Su-27’s direct counter currently is AIM-9M’s, but AIM-120’s would be a fantastic addition to make BVR a bit more fun.
No one said anything about inertial guidance and there are technologies in the Aim7 series missiles that assist when signal loss occurs. Such as an autopilot computer that continues course to last known track.
Even @k_stepanovich understands and is aware of it. He literally just spoke in regard to it.
Yet it went to last known intercept point, you dont need ins to do that, you just need autopilot logic to keep missile flying last direction where it knew it would intercept. Now it stops doing anything, fly straight opposite side and self detonates. It should fly and reconnect as long as battery is alive and enemy plane in seekers fov limits, self destruction should occur ONLY when battery depletes. Same goes for S530D. Not to mention M variant still works as CW on f15 with inferior lock ranges based on document made with 200W F4Es CW illuminator. All this is absurdly wrong.
This affected all missiles though. The R-27ER works according to primary documents right now, if you have better information I’d be glad to toil over it.
You’re in here every day complaining about the game, I’m starting to think you have more fun trashing the game than actually playing it… which is unfortunate. Been playing for 11 years and they’ve made it more and more awesome each year.
You have 60k posts on these forums. Please dont project on me. You are literally the poster child for posting on these forums. You have no life outside these forums. I doubt you have time to play the game. You spend 99% of your time complaining about F-16 and F-15 flight models. Its sad. No one cares. Stop.
It uses proportional navigation, thats literally outcome of it… Its the same thing as 9M when it sees flares, it continues in last direction until it regains lock. It wont magically stop turning. Or turn other way like sparrow often loves to do.
The vast majority (95%+) of your posts is some unwarranted complaint and insult towards the company lol
Push ahead is vastly different than PN.
Likewise, it would need to store the track data somehow rather than active update controls based on live input. Do you or do you not have information necessary for a report?
The vast majority of your posts are pandering for NATO nerfs and trying to score brownie points with developers. 60k posts of that. Your life is very meaningful.
I’ve made less than 3k posts, but good reading. I find what I do to be entertaining, and fulfilling. Thanks.
If you don’t find it as meaningful perhaps it isn’t for you and you should put typing away on here to rest…
The reason you have that attention is because I called him out. Ill take 2 weeks bans, no problem. If it embarrasses these shady developers enough to respond its good enough for me. How do you like them apples mig? You have over 60k posts and Im the guy that gets the reponses around here.