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.
Be my guest.
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.
You really like to deflect don’t you.
I’ve also complained a lot about f18A but nothing is done
but the recurrence of the main US does not compare with the rest
You assume subtext which doesnt fit with rest of my posts in that thread. THAT is a problem.
Except you go on about drag and AOA when that was never point of my comparison, even in the original thread.
Continuing the discussion from Why the AIM120C5 is so useless?:
No i just dont care if you continue this charade.
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.
1 Like
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.
You also forgot that the aim 120 c 5 and above are supposed to HAVE REDUCED SMOKE MOTORS (exactly like the 9m and 9x)
1 Like
god i hope so. i still saw occasional thread claiming otherwise tho.
anyway, are you still holding the position that i implied that C5s will get fixed with live release?
1 Like
The aim 120s are not fixed, give me some of what your smoking.
1 Like
i’d strongly gamble on skill issue on those cases :P
Meh, i think you made it clear enough that your position was more conservative than hopeful that the situation could’ve changed.
What i meant was around the missile’s proximity fuses and how they were working unreliably, which were by far the greatest game-breaking bug this couple of weeks. That has been fixed.
I acknowledge how gimped the AIM-120A/B/C-5s are, and they’re still not fixed, no need to lecture me.
1 Like
Sorry, didn’t mean to come across that mean.
im glad that misunderstanding was cleared up.
i honestly do hope they have some case uses, because i really dont want to remake all of my EFT loadouts for nothing.
That’s a joke right? Go look at what USSR got this update
1 Like
Nobody has requested classified documemts at all and we are very clear on our policy never to accept them anywhere on any of our platforms:
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/source-material-restrictions-on-classified-and-export-restricted-information-military-restrictions/2069/3
Please do not twist my worlds and mislead people. Many reports have already been made on the AIM-120 series using open information and this is exactly what I was reffering too.
We only ever use publicly avalable and open sources. Never anything with any kind of restrictions or classifications.
1 Like