Feeling that one.
Im watching missiles scratch enemys paint and not explode.
If they do explode they can be on fire spinnjng with no wings = assist.
Gane is unplayable. Chances of a fix before christmas?
I’ve been having a horrid time with 120s right now. I’ve been playing some mixed nations lately and not having these issues with 77 series or the pl12…
I have no real data behind this but something definitely seems off and I see the sentiment shared in the player base.
2 Likes
Idk I hope. I haven’t had these many hits in a long time.
1 Like
Same.
Other missiles have random damage issues but amrams its every shot
1 Like
Also still a ton of planes in a flat spin shooting off hmd shots…. lol. That hasn’t been changed.
I have yet to play with the new damage model stuff today, I will see how it goes tonight.
2 Likes
It isn’t that bad though, people have been playing terribly since path release I got a penta bvr kill with the r77-1 and I’ve gotten quad aim54s kills twice. Like people just aren’t paying attention
Yeah I almost never get avionics destroyed on the su30sm.
The only good thing is now I don’t feel like I am crazy. Also watching some creators on YT highlighting the issues. Hoping it can be seriously fixed. The AMRAAM has been so underwhelming for so long. The C was an absolute joke.
4 Likes
What I don’t understand is why the R-77-1 in the game is shown as having a maximum overload of 50 g. Which primary source reliably claims this, in order to meet the standards required for a bug report?
I don’t really see why the developers so often use fantasy or propaganda values as the basis for their decisions, and then arbitrarily decide what they consider to be marketing exaggeration and what they do not.
See the IRIS-T debate.
3 Likes
Classic case of Russia/China always publishing that crazy value for the scare tactic and then falling short in real life.
Whereas US equipment is almost ways undervalued when advertised. I’m not debating this is just a fact.
I’m not even asking for them to nerf any RU/CN stuff. I just want the amraam to perform properly. To think that they introduce the C variants and then act like because they have 2” difference in fin size this improved amraam is somehow worse then it’s predecessor.
It can’t turn, it’s just as fast within reasonable shoot distance to a target as the B. Unless they force you to take it over a B, cough cough GOLDEN EAGLE, just taking B will net you more results.
please read the r-77 technical discussion thread. I have shown primary sources that have shown its 50 gs and is currently underperforming in maneuverability.
Bug report for R-77 lacking maneuverability:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/t87egJpsGQUk
Also, here’s the source for r-77 being 50 gs.
2 Likes
datalinking also only works when your missile is above the targeted player, if the enemy player raises their altitude against your missile. The missile will go into SRC mode and bite on chaff easily. You can not datalink it then.
Only when target player is lower in alt than the missile, the missile goes into IOG+DL and you can then easily guide it
If youre below the altitude of the missile and cant seem to defeat it, you will need to notch the radar and then the missile. So spamming chaff when youre perpendicular to the radar will help alot better and then notch the missile itself.
Whilst it is indeed great to be able to provide datalink beyond the notch. there are certain quirks. However, datalink can be some what iffy seeing how right now radars are easily losing hard locks. My experience has not been great radar locking and guiding my ERs in. Its been losing radar locks direct rear aspect.
And EFT UK/Italy/ gripen E also have radars that can datalink while notching. They cant fire beyond the notch but they can datalink if they turn in and fire it and then go back into the notch.
This is not respective to Irbis
This is exactly the kind of “source” that highlights the double standards developers unfortunately apply quite often when it comes to implementing Russian equipment in the game.
A patent is being treated as hard, operational performance data here, while similar patent statements or manufacturer claims for Western systems are usually dismissed as marketing exaggeration or “unverified”.
Yes, the patent EP0829424A1 does mention values around ~50 g. However, a patent is not evidence of actual in-service performance. Patents exist to protect design concepts and theoretical capability margins; they are deliberately written broadly and do not require experimental proof, certification, or series-production validation.
In this case, the document discusses aerodynamic control concepts (lattice fins) and refers to high transverse loads in a design context, not as a confirmed performance figure for an operational R-77 or R-77-1 missile.
If 50 g were a real, fielded capability, it would be consistently reflected in manufacturer datasheets, export specifications, Russian MoD or industry publications or reputable secondary sources.
None of those publicly available sources list 50 g. What is consistently stated in Russian/export material is a target maneuver limit of ~12 g, which is a fundamentally different parameter.
Using a patent claim as definitive proof in this case — while rejecting similar sources elsewhere — is precisely why these double standards stand out so clearly.
did you not read the patent lol?
I implore you to read the r-77 thread, I have already SHOWN all the information I have provided and am gonna provide in that thread. It is a good source for information of r-77.
This is just ai slop with what you have just responded to me with…
As for proof this for r-77… i have shown this before, but I’ll say this again.
Copy paste from previous posts of mine in other threads:
Spoiler
if you go to the reference that this patent refers to, it shows PBB-AE, which is equal to RVV-AE, which is export r-77. I have attached the magazine in the spoiler
Page 26 of Wings of the Motherland
Crude translation
You can argue its not technically r-77 because the patent refers to it as a “prototype”… so it can be prototype r-77, but atp it’s just semantics. The patent will still apply to r-77 as it refers to a “range” for its values, and the rvv-ae/r-77 falls within them
1 Like
80% ai……
2 Likes
the moment you see this long hyphen its obviously ai
2 Likes
Yep lol
Yes, I have read the patent. Quoting it does not change what it actually is.
The issue is not whether the patent mentions ~50 g — it does. The issue is the assumption that a patent claim automatically equals verified, in-service performance, which is simply not how patents work.
It’s not on me to prove that the missile does not reach 50 g — it’s on you to prove that it does. I’ve also read the thread, and it didn’t convince me.
Dismissing this as “AI slop” does not address the argument. The distinction between a patent claim and verified performance data is standard engineering practice.
I use AI for translation and to improve my grammar 🙂. I think that’s perfectly normal these days.
I have a question what do you think rvv-ae is
Is this a chat? Its the export version.