Good for you.
I wonder what the R73 being able to maneuver better in point blank head on has anything to do with the IRCCM.
What does the sun have to do with it when the R73 loves the sun more when trying to obtain a lock in the first place with the high off boresight capability.
Everything has “fantastic” IRCCM when used against optimal targets. Lol thanks for being specific.
No one is talking about against optimal targets. How specific do these guys have to be?
For a missile that was designed to be shot high off boresight and not directly behind someone is definitely underperforming. It’s completely counter intuitive to the purpose it was designed.
The entire point of the missile was to kill targets without having to be directly behind them.
The R-73 doesn’t have a 1.8s proximity fuse delay and is highly resistant in head-ons against afterburning targets at very close range
The forbidden heatsource was a humorous addon to “riding into the sunset” (it missed the target and kept going)
Not everything has IRCCM, and the AIM-9M’s will simply turn the seeker off when in the presence of a flare on a non afterburning target in rear aspect… The R-73 will continue to chase the target.
Yes y’all are, all of the shots shown or discussed were against targets flying in a straight line instead of maneuvering after popping their flares… that is THE optimal target for AIM-9M.
You like to say something is over / underperforming often without any actual source or backing. We have more than enough primary sources to indicate it’s performing as it should.
1 Like
a proximity fuse is not IRCCM.
Captain obvious we know that. However, every missile is extremely deadly when fired from rear quarters and the R73 is not designed to be fired from only the rear quarters. It was overengineered to be fired in high off boresight and maintain a track at those aspects.
Coming from the guy that just said “the R73 is super good at optimal targets”
Who is we? You and the developers? because you are one, right? Who told you, your datamining tools?
Speak for yourself for once in your life. Play the the missile more than a 100 games as GJ has designed it to be played and get back to us.
Thanks.
So is the Aim9H. So what’s your point?
The R-73 doesn’t have a 1.8s proximity fuse delay and is highly resistant in head-ons against afterburning targets at very close range
I just tried the R73 on a target that had the AB front aspect turned on and after 1-2 flares the R73 flew to flare.
The distance from the target was about ~1km.
I tried at shorter/larger distances same thing.
And the function of the AIM-9M’s IRCCM would be better for point blank head-ons had it not had such a long arming delay for the proximity fuse.
Yes it was designed for use in dogfights (and dogfight ranges). It’s somewhat flare resistant in these conditions. For an opponent to lower their thrust significantly and turn to keep the missile off his rear would be quite detrimental to the fight. At that time missiles were not considered good enough to forego a gun still.
It’s also pretty early IRCCM, I’m not sure what you’re asking for. In fact, it’s interesting because they copied the IRCCM from the R-73 to the magic 2… which should have an even smaller iFoV AND the same methods for flare decoy rejection as the AIM-9M. The R-73 itself is already accurate.
I stated the obvious, but you can’t connect the dots and understand why the R-73s flare rejection method is superior?
The people making the bug reports.
I always have. You’re gonna speak for the entire community about the AIM-9M knowing full well it’s not as good as the R-73 as bait lol
R-73 still missing 60G in TVC mode which would agree that it’s a close-range dogfighting missile
At what ranges?
This is something we can test, try using the AIM-9M on an award target who knows all he has to do is flare and move the mouse a few inches. In the videos you can see an aware opponent who was preflaring, maneuvering to kill me and he was completely helpless to stop the missile because he didn’t jam the WEZ.
There is 5 men in here that are speaking for themselves that the IRCCM is lacking.
I already stated my position that the R73 started acting weird for me end of last week. Everything else is purely their own findings that coincide with mine before I even made the claim in detail lol.
So how am I speaking for them? When they explained before me?
This guy post a 2 month old video.
With no evidence, sources, or logical reason.
Like your disproven beliefs that the SMT was performing disparagingly in relation to the other MiG-29s at similar weights?
Nothing has changed in the IRCCM since, not to mention the R-73 is faster now due to reduced drag and improved PID for guidance. Even more lethal than in the video.
A two month old video is not a source or evidence that the missile has not been altered since before the patch dropped.
You hear that boys? You have no logical reasoning according to this developer and professional dataminer.
You are not a developer, get that through your thick skull. Can you even show us were the IRCCM sensitivity is in the files? Can you show us were Flare strength is altered in the files for each and every aircraft? Can you show us where large caliber flares are altered for each and every aircraft? Can you show us where chaff and radar sensitivity is determined and altered in the files? For each and every radar?
Can you show us the ranges where any CM has most effect and minor effect and where those are altered?
You have the superior datamining tools, don’t you?
The IRCCM hasn’t been altered. Check a datamine.
If you’re proclaiming that I’m those things please put it to rest.
You’re right, I’m not. You don’t need to be to understand what I’m saying either.
The R-73’s comes from the gateWidth line, which is the inner FoV. It also comes from the rangeBands wherein the bands for airframe / exhaust plume and countermeasures are slightly different. Older missiles are 1:1 ratio, in this case it has slightly higher ratio in favor of airframe over flares for R-73.
Yes, flares as a countermeasure have their own file. There are currently two categories. How well they work is dependent on the temperature of the aircraft and direction of deployment.
This is all evident in the files I’m not sure where you’re going with this but it’s detracting from your point. In-game testing is necessary to compare the IRCCM since they are not the same methods. Apples to oranges.
In this case, the R-73 cannot be defeated in a wider range of situations where the AIM-9M is defeated by a simple maneuver. I would argue that makes the R-73 better.
Yes, for the R-73 I can show you the ranges that it will be most effective based on the FoV. At a certain point it sees nothing but the target and flares are no longer in the FoV unless they are deployed directly between target and seeker … which is why the MiG-29 has an advantage with shoulder fired countermeasures. They are closer to the center of mass and when banking deploy between itself and the missile seeker, always staying in the FoV for a brief moment.
I’ll be back tonight.
This guy literally said none of you have evidence, sources or logical reason.
Let the record reflect that. As he goes into damage control.
All he has is a video from before the patch even dropped. Thats his logic.
You don’t have to alter the IRCCM genius. You can alter the many different aspects such as aircraft IR signatures or flare strengths of each aircraft.
I thought you knew this since you’re a developer and speak for them often?
You have the best datamining tools, right? Even better than Oshida correct?
I do not care what you can show me you narcissist. I want you to be silent and let others have a chance voice their concerns and their evidence.
at very close range headons you can also eat shit from a vulcan
1 Like
I am going to make a video of me dogfighting at pre stall speeds with infinite missiles and min fuel in a custom battles and title it R73 Test 1 and Test 2.
That is going to be my evidence and source moving forward like this dude just provided.
Anything you guys have to say is going to be illogical because I have a video of me in custom battles. Aren’t I cool? All I really want is everyone just to watch my videos so I can feel cool even though they are recorded months ago, before the patch even dropped and has no relevance to Air RB whatsoever.
The logic is that the missiles’ been buffed since. You’re saying the AIM-9M has superior IRCCM when (of the two) the R-73 is the only one that can continue tracking a defensive target regardless of what he does in various scenarios. Nevermind the fact that these IR short range missiles are meant for the moments before and immediately after a merge, when you fail to kill the enemy at medium to long ranges. The R-73 and MiG-29 are better suited for this. At this point if we want to continue discussing just the missiles, there is an entirely different thread for you to spam up.
I’m not entertaining head-ons at high speed in a merge… I’m talking about a 30° frontal arc when you’re already post-merge. In spite of the Vulcans laser beam trajectory it hits like a water pistol in comparison to the Gsh-23 or the 29’s 30mm. And even when they have radar gun solutions the Vulcan users still miss.