For “the kinematics are too crazy” folks, here’s some comparisons to existing missiles:
Maximum Flight Range (1200kmh launch) [Other missiles position shown at the 20sec battery timeout]:
Maximum U-turn Flight Range (1200kmh launch):
Python 4: -8600m @ M0.8 timeout
R73: -7400m @ M0.79 timeout
Maximum U-turn Flight Range (600kmh launch):
Python 4: -8600m @ M0.79 timeout
R-73: -7500m @ M0.74 timeout
Maximum pull off the rail (600kmh launch, any slower leads to growing R-73 advantage):
As you can see the kinematics of the Python 4 represent ~15% increase in range over the R-73, without exceeding its maneuverability. With IRCCM nerfed to be equivalent to current missiles (as has been done with PL8B, PL5E2, and AAM-3), the Python 4 when mounted on an obese F16 at 14.0 would be such a nonissue for balance.
If pinning messages is possible, it should be done ASAP, this testing is a really valuable testament to the fact that the Python 4 is NOT the extremely OP missile it’s made out to be, and only a cut above the rest, especailly with nerfed IRCCM
Problem is that in the files as far as I can tell, it has a soft limit of 40 degrees and not a hard limit of 40 degrees. Hard limiting it to 40 degrees lets it hit insane shots
Can someone explain to me the python 5 motor and how it differed form python 4? The way some people describe it, it kinda sounds like a throttle able ram jet (ik it’s not a ramjet) but with solid fuel?
From what I’ve heard and read, the missile is able to modulate the thrust output of the motor (probably using fuel that ignites when electrical current runs through it)
and this applies for every other missile not just R-73 thats why all the missiles tends to perform way better in custom matches with way less people or for examples in 8v8 squadron battles that the servers dont have high load, in custom matches the R-73 works amazing i even hit targets in 1v1 situations a lot of times from front aspect at 1.3-1.5km and the enemy was preflaring, the 9M, AAM-3 and many other missiles tends to track even better doing some crazy things sometimes.
I want to clarify that the p4 has and max effective range of 15 km maybe 20 km in perfect condition irl
Its also 15 lbs heavier and has a higher drag than the p5
In game even if it has a long burn time and can do 180° turns the missile has so a lot of drag and and will end up losing a lot of energy when the motor runs out
In game in terms of range it might be slightly better than the r73 but not by much like the graph show
P4 will definitely be better when it comes to time to target
Giving it seeker shutoff would make it good at range and side shots
Fov gatewith would make it good at close range
Its not that hard to balance
i still remember that long time ago we had kinda a similar debate for the Python-3 and a lot of people were saying that if that thing comes it would be the most “OP” thing, people was traumatized knowing that a missile that would do “40Gs” could come to the game, some even said it had IRCCM when it was really clear that it didnt have, the amount of missinformation behind this missile was insane and when it finally end up being added to the game resulted in just an 9L with a little bit more of pull and a little bit faster in accel the flare resistance is literally the same because its seeker is a copy paste 9L seeker, the only good advantage over 9L is that its good for headons besides that there is nothing crazy about it to point out. soo thank god now be have this kind of tools to debunk many things and fight the missinformation that some users tends to use with malice.
The contemparies match the Python 5, so skipping the 4 is either a mistake, or strategic nerf from gaijin, if they plan to give us P4s while everyone gets MICA IR, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, etc, I will be genuinely appalled
