So, from what I’m getting here is you’re expecting Super Hornet (ie F/A-18E/F) flight performance from the F/A-18Cs we have in-game? It’s a relatively small fighter jet with a high missile count and superior AoA capability compared to everything else the US tech tree currently has AND it has the added benefit of not immediately falling out of the sky like jets such as the MiG-29SMT or the many Su-27 variants in-game.
And by “entire nations get aircraft that clearly outperform (and are often over performing)”, you must mean France with their Rafale, right? Even with the most recent changes to it it’s still much better than the current C Hornets as it should be… (Though if you meant other nations specifically, do let me know)
Have you tried launching an AIM-120 above Mach 1.2? The effective range of any missile isn’t going to be much if you’re launching it while low and slow. I’ve bonked so many people in the cockpit so many times launching either AIM-120 variants going Mach 1.5+ in the F-15E I’ve never found any issue with it. The only downside to the AIM-120 in general is it can’t really hit anything under 7 km because like the Sparrow it needs energy to turn. With the C-5, this is even moreso with its clipped fins so don’t expect a lot of (or even the same) fin AoA as with the AIM-120A/B. Unlike the A/B, you get a teeny bit more range due to it having less drag and it doesn’t explode after about a minute of flight, so that’s good.
I mean, objectively speaking most major games companies are rarely that forthcoming with its community like Gaijin sometimes is. They do sometimes listen, or at least publicly make it known that they do. Most of the time? It’s mostly internal discussion. it’s the internet, and most if not all complaints/feedback comes through here: someone will have seen it (or it is being monitored by mods, at the very least).
There’s nothing wrong with the F/A-18C Late (I’m assuming tech tree?). The “only” issue I can see with the AIM-120C-5 is it missing its reduced smoke motor which everyone knows it has. Not really a big issue, given it’s a radar missile and you’ll know it’s coming anyway, but still. Community feedback has always been received, and rarely publicly acknowledged. It matters in what way you say it (think less random forum rant, more constructive post when given the opportunity).
The F18 annihilates the Su-30SM past the merge in a dogfight. Su-30SM has the advantage in BVR because it’s much faster.
Of course it’s much more difficult against Eurofighter and Rafale. The Su-30SM ALSO can’t do much past the merge against those two. It is doable though, if you now what you’re doing and don’t just smash the funny AOA button and become a kite instantly.
I think you’re just bad and this is a major skill issue. The F18 is probably the third best top tier jet aircraft, behind the Eurofighter and Rafale. At least past the merge.
I’d rather have a Su-30SM for BVR though. The F18’s anemic speed is what handicaps it.
I mean it bleeds a lot of speed, but yeah up until mach 1 it accelerates pretty decently (after mach 1 it’s acceleration kind of falls of a cliff though).
I could be wrong, but iirc the Super Hornet is going to be worse than the current 18(C) late we have in game in terms of flight performance wise.
It’s funny that you have nothing to say about the C-5/7 performance despite your so eloquent ‘its dev server performance, they’ll probably fix it’ back on the dev server category.
So I’m fed up, every time it’s the same thing, it’s always a guy who just complains that US is weak. You open the guy’s profile and he just plays with US.
It’s always the same complaints and crying, no matter the pacth or the meta, and always “US is too weak” and “Russian bias”
Avoiding responsibility of your own message when the subtext of it clearly was ‘it’s going to get changed’ (assuming for the better) it’s a huge blow, you’re deflecting, and being disingenuous.
Is the missile better or worse than it was in the dev server? Is that performance enough to be an improvement to 120A/Bs?
I’m eager to hear your judgement.
SPAA and ARH balancing go on different rails and hold no meaningful, common ground to do comparisons with. It was common sense that they would touch SPAAs in a SPAA-related update even in their 2nd dev server. The 120C-5 was something Gaijin decided to add on airframes out of nothing.
I have a good time on chasing disingenuous and over-entitled people in the forums. Until you don’t admit you were exceedingly wrong around the situation, i’ll keep my thing going.
Sorry but thats borderline schizophrenic assumption.
Havent had the chance to try it out myself as i havent touched air RB due to bug. Morvran said its sidegeade at best and worse than A/B in some areas and i trust his judgment.
Of course you dismiss it when it doesnt fit with your previous statement.
Welp, that’s nothing that i can’t argue against. I even fought some US mains myself in the past about the F/A-18A ¯_(ツ)_/¯.
I mean, you can complain about how mediocre the F/A-18C and be somewhat right, but the F/A-18A is quite good for where it is.
That is something that could really be said for any other nation main tbf.
I must be crazy to assume common sense and subtext exists on our society for a reason.
When i’ve compared an air-launched ARH missile to a ground launched ARH missile? AFAIK C5/7 are basically the same thing, the only difference is their motor to compensate the C7 ground launch. Same drag and AOA. I’m not ruling out arguments when it’s not convenient to my point. I ruled it out because it doesn’t make practical sense.
You were steps away from arguing their Naval balancing progress meant that the window to ARH changes was still open, and how they were on the verge of changing the missile stats, when they already gave everything they wanted to C-5s to be even by the time that thread was made.
What was exactly your point of comparison to begin with? Was it ‘the missile is not ready and could be changed’ despite the obvious negative by devs?
Smin is actively requesting classified documents to get the missile changed, despite there’s already bug reports on the AIM-120A/B and even now there’s a couple of reports on the C-5 that have been already ruled out because of their lack of informative depth, but there’s not many info out there either.
You can’t make this up.
That instead of making threads how dev server C5s suck, which contributes little to fixing the problem, people couldve taken notes from the SLM and Mirage IIIS threads and start compiling bug lists and collaborating on bug reports and ways how to make them prove.
i would need to dig through the entire SLM thread again, which i frankly wont because its too much work, but people were posting sources, data mining and coming up with ways to test the missile performance in game to show it does not match aviable sources. if thats not how dev server thread about any upcoming addition should look like, i dont know how.
exactly. could be changed. thats all i said. it could be changed. i never for once implied that gaijin will fix it - at least not without proper bug reporting:
and, not only was C5 changed from accurate to bad before we had that “conversation” in the dev server thread, to my knowledge, C5 did in fact got changed few times after that.
That comment was made day after my comments in original thread, and i really cant see into the future.
Suprise! I literally foreshadowed to you that it wouldn’t change the same day after, and you trusted them anyway.
After all this, i’m just saying that you’re a bit naïve on trusting Gaijin when it comes to their modelling. You can make the best bug report (even with classified documents) and they’ll probably accept it, only to fold it for years until they correct such bug in-game.
The bug report mechanic only works under their explicit benefit or the game convention they want to deliver, not on the historical accuracy, not even on some reasonable expression of game balance which was the AOA situation.
And that’s why protesting here has some practical use, to expose that reality and why they must do things without the community biting them all the time.
I never trusted gaijin tho. I said to hold judgment for live implementation. which, as i preivously said, is sidegrade at best according to some. i myself have yet to try C5 because i havent touched ARB due to missile bug.
and believe me im the last person to trust dev server. “dont bother making threads, PSO will recieve the MEXAS beak!”. what a load of crap that was.
SLM got fixed tho, with help of some of those bug fixes.
never said to not protest either. again I said to save judgement for live implementation.
The missiles functionality and prox fuse are already fixed, so you can try them once you get them. Its the same old 120A/B with a bit of extra range and its faster beyond 20km (an unusual engagement range if you want to do an effective ARB killcount), though it also has the same anemic HOBS and turn performance once it lofts more than 20ish seconds.