stop using AI
think for yourself and bring sources
1 Like
I agree, I forgot to mention that
Agreed. The progression should be AIM-54A → AIM-54C → AIM-54C+, not AIM-54A ≥ AIM-54C. If the C model is already underperforming, then any discussion about the C+ becomes much harder because the baseline itself is questionable.
I’ve already conceded the ΔV point and adjusted my position accordingly. If you have sources regarding the AIM-54C+, feel free to post them.
As for AI, whether a sentence was written by me, AI, or typed on a napkin doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether the argument is supported by evidence.
So let’s talk about the missile, not the keyboard.
then show your evidence
1 Like
I’m already using the same evidence available to everyone else: public sources, game files, and physics.
If you have additional public sources, post them.
If your standard of evidence is documentation that isn’t publicly available, then we’re no longer discussing open-source information—we’re discussing classified material, which isn’t something that belongs on this forum.
iam asking for the sources you used
not for a diversion
becasue as it stands you arent contributing in any usefull way to any disscussion
Fair question.
The sources I used were:
- The missile parameters currently available in the game files.
- Publicly available information on the AIM-54A, AIM-54C, and Fakour-90.
- Basic engineering and physics principles when comparing missiles with similar airframes, propulsion systems, and masses.
The proposed AIM-54C+ values were not based on a specific document claiming those exact figures. They were an attempt to illustrate where I believe the missile would need to sit relative to the AIM-54C and Fakour-90 from a gameplay and progression standpoint.
As you correctly pointed out, increasing ΔV while keeping the same motor and airframe is difficult to justify. I accepted that criticism and revised my position accordingly.
So if you’re asking for a source that specifically states “AIM-54C+ has X ΔV,” I don’t have one. If such a document exists publicly, I’d be interested in reading it as well.
brother
i can talk to chatgpt myself
Why on earth are they still trying to keep it an equal to the F-14B?! (It has better radar, so already failed)
For God’s sakes Gaijin, you’re so good at copy-paste already. Just give it its proper weapons and their proper performance, balance it using THE BR SYSTEM YOU CAME UP WITH EXPLICITLY TO BALANCE HISTORICALLY ARMED VEHICLES, and make a TT clone in the F-14D(R) or change the prem F-14D to the (R).
2 Likes
At least we’re finally in agreement: anyone can use ChatGPT or other IA. The difficult part is still evaluating the information afterward. 😄
which you obviously arent
so either stop posting
or start thinking for yourself instead of copy pasting my responses into chatgpt
1 Like
I accepted the ΔV criticism and corrected my position. That’s how technical discussions are supposed to work.
If you want to discuss the AIM-54C+, I’m happy to do that. If you want to discuss me, I don’t think that’s particularly productive.
you claimed that there are differences so please show your sources for it
The missile parameters I referenced come from the community-maintained Guided Weaponry Data spreadsheet.
that is not a source
i want a source for your claims about the 54C+ performance and not the datamines
Calm down, bro; it’s a game. The spreadsheet was the source for the missile parameters. The proposed AIM-54C+ values were my own suggestion and not presented as historical figures.
so you were making baselss claims with no real sources to back them up by using AI
and now that i ask for a proper source you come with this
the most based take on this post
You’re treating a balance proposal as if it were a historical claim.The data came from the spreadsheet.
The proposed AIM-54C+ values were my suggestion.Those are two different things.