So why do you think r77 doesn’t fall into the ranges of rvv-ae
Hello everyone.
My thinking of what would make the AIM-120 C-5 better in game is an update in the guidance start delay of its seeker. From the spreadsheet, it is currently set to 0.6s which is more than other ARH missiles found at a similar battle rating (most being set at 0.3s with the exception of the Mica being at 0.15s).
By lowering this value, it will make it better for jousting at close range and since most of the changes regarding seeker performance don’t seem to rely on actual proof, it could be implemented for balancing purposes (and also make it an actual upgrade from the A/B varaiant).
I agree, this along with the maneuvering capability received from Fin AOA(the nerf last year june period) reduced by half(or basically upped by half of what the nerf did) should help extatically or more upped than half(I think gaijin nerfed it cuz it was prolly overpeforming with that FIN aoa, but i doubt we have any data to know wat the case is, whatever seems reasonable and makes it perform on par.
Also, emphasis bolding of text is another decent indicator.
Devs removed the guidance delay change in the dev server of the update that the c-5 was added. so they only have an upgrade in range and are the same or worse in every other way. the c-5 has a ton of potential upgrades like a better seeker head as a placeholder until eccm is added, I have video evidence that the guidance delay on at least the b and c variants should be far better as all missiles are modeled as rail lunched but the AMRAAM seems to have the delay of an ejected missile. so I would say the aim-120 platform has many issues with realism that need fixing.
1 Like
The in-game guidance delay on the AIM-120 variants is 0.6 seconds compared to 0.3 seconds of a lot of the others. Not that much in my opinion but if there is evidence of otherwise then feel free to report it, i fully support things in the game to be modeled as closely to real life as possible.
If you mean the booster delay i think it depends on where it’s launched from but i’m not sure, at least IRL the booster delay depends on if it’s wing mounted or belly dropped from what i’ve seen. Not sure if the same is true for in-game.
If you want to look at more in-game details:
1 Like
Well, if you have an ejector rack launch then there’s booster Delay and guidance Delay because you have to get out of the slipstream in the aircraft, but I have a video of the fins on the aim-120 turning directly off the rail. Do videos work as primary sources? If not, I believe I have another video that would corroborate that if they can at least be considered a secondary source.
pull vid 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgMMC6PxE2U 0:21
pull vid 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPV81wD3nwM 0:37
If we’re still doing seeker changes maybe this change could also be actioned on?
Personally I’m not entirely sure which AMRAAM variant this is exclusive to unless it’s either all 3 or from B onwards. IMO, it could just be made something to augment AIM-120C-5 (on top of this guidance delay reduction) only as having to apply it (AMRAAM seeker FoV from ~15 to 6 degrees) to all AIM-120A/B/C-5 would require BR increases for literally every jet with AMRAAM similar to how M2K with MICA were moved up.
Depends on the issue being reported, sometimes they do.
You can bug report it here (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about): (Gaijin.net // Issues)
A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)
am i tweaking or did r-77-1 get better.
just got a 7 kill game and my longest range kill on it, it just seems like it misses so much less.
i swear to god they must have buffed em, also the patch that should disable avionics doesnt work i can always shoot when crippled
That’s because the change was reverted
2 Likes
Other than the bug where the R-77-1s were going the opposite way when you were rolled to the side or upside down being fixed, nothing else was done. Missile is the same as always
Yep pretty much most missiles will need to do more damage to jets in order to get that avionics disabled. However iirc other things will be affected tho like flight controls or whatever.
2 Likes
why tho it didnt seem bad of an idea
people just get helluva lot worse i guess
I agree, but it messed up the damage dealt to jets.
Fun fact, even after reverting it and changing the damage system, the missiles are so bad at killing targets.
Just a few minutes ago I’ve had a match in the Aesa Typhoon where my C5 headed for a strike eagle cockpit, perfectly hit him and dealt only a Crit… quite ridicolous if you ask me
1 Like
i had a few days like that, but then the last 2 days its been pretty crazy, my missiles always land and do a ton of damage.
I’ve seen this with the R77s and Mica, my amraams on the other side are “HIT” simulator, idk what the hell happened, but it’s like a kill assist fiesta lately.
1 Like
I liked the fact that they were adding detailed modules for top tier jets, like the f18s.
At least with that system the jet abilities get rightfully disabled when a specific component is hit.
The change that they reverted made the disabling effect pretty RNG, but the solution they brought now doesn’t really help either haha.
3 Likes