My point was that it’s actually worse than the AIM-120A, which means I don’t even know why they added it. We’re lucky we can use the AIM-120A on the F-15J as there’s no reason to use the AAM-4 right now when it’s actually worse in all departments besides explosive filler.
2 Likes
Gaijin could not get into the grid fins and TVC
1 Like
Hopefully Gaijin gets on that, there isn’t much left to add in terms of missiles which don’t have TVC.
They’ve already got the R-73, SRAAM, and MICA, but AIM-120C-5, All 5-th gen IR, and probably a lot more all use TVC and its going to need to be modeled right soon.
Grid fins, I can see them just leaving though. Only the R-77 and R-77-1 use them, so why waste time? As long as they can do it close enough, it shouldn’t be too terribly dramatic.
If they do not model the transonic drag properties they can either make the missile match higher than 1 mach launch scenario for higher altitudes and cause overperformance at medium and low alts… or they can model it for lower speed launches where it will drastically underperform in BVR. They’ve sort of compromised and made it draggier than it needs to be when launched at high speed… so the latter.
1 Like
I can’t see anything close enough.
I knew I wasn’t going crazy when it felt like I was being tracked by stuff through mountains.
1 Like
Are AMRAAMS buged or under-performing or anything?
Because holy shit, ive got R77s pulling off some absolute jesus level stuff, while my AMRAAMs just lose lock or turn 90 degrees before hitting the target.
I dont feel AMRAAMs are as consistent as R77s
1 Like
They all have the same notch resistance (bad), however the better range of the 120 means you are probably firing them from farther out, and they have less maneuvering potential the longer after the motor burns out before reaching a target. This is the same for every missile. However, because of the worse kinematic performance of the R-77, people are tending to wait until ‘suicide launch’ range where the missile still has a metric ass ton of maneuvering potential, and because of the higher speed, less reaction time. If you fire the AIM-120 under the same conditions it would perform similarly.
5 Likes
But 120 sees aircraft through textures
That’ll get fixed as a bug report has been made.
It’s equally annoying firing an amraam at a target that’s being tracked through the ground, because the amraam just ploughs into the deck, meaning you wasted a shot.
I’ve given up firing at long range, I’ve been doing them between 5-10 miles.
The results vary with similar conditions. I’ve had missiles perfectly track, then just pull a hard 90 degree turn when it should have detonated.
I’ve seen R77s and mica ems work more consistently at the close in ranges than amraam.
Yeah,
Traditional BVR is not effective in 16v16 combat.
I have been having far more success being defensive early on, and keeping my speed below mach 1 and flying at treetop level.
The Derby has some funky loft code which makes it worthless beyond 20km and an absolute monster below 10km
If ai can get directly underneath some high altitude fliers, the missile just goes absolute ham when launched vertically…
Same thing pretty much
It uses inertial guidance to fly to the intercept Point while trying to get a new Lock
That is out of the question, but the question is what does the Seeker do in that time?
-does it switch to a conical pattern?
-does it only search the intercept point?
-does it search the flight line up to the intercept point?
- Or is the seeker centred?
I personally think that they should’ve just held off on these three, as they would be somewhat advanced for initial AMRAAM/R-77.
As far as I know, the Japanese planes capable of using AAM-4 (namely the F-15J Kai or whatever it’s called now) are also capable of using the AMRAAM, and that’s in game.
The PL-12 capable planes, in general, are also capable of using the R-77 and could’ve gotten that instead - the PL-12 normal has a max range way too high for the current initial ARH missiles. Alternatively, they could’ve added a PL-12/E (PL-12/Early) that’s just an SD-10, which I think has reduced maximum range and in theory could be used by anything that could use a PL-12. Maybe then they wouldn’t have had to nerf it so hard.
MICA on the other hand is a bit hard, because iirc none of the MICA planes are capable of using the AMRAAM. In theory they could’ve done a similar thing to the PL-12/E (SD-10) and made a MICA RF/E that’s just a MICA but pre-production (and with lower range) so that they could add the real MICA later. Or they could make the MICA RF and MICA EM two different missiles even though I’m pretty sure they’re the same.
Also, this update seems very hasty. I think it might’ve been better if the ARHs were left to cook for like another year (at least a few more updates) because right now they feel like they were thrown in for the shock value/desire factor and not because the game actually needed it.
2 Likes
Welp, gotta generate that hype and stuff!
1 Like
PL-12 ingame is already SD-10. That’s why it loses to AMRAAM. Also on the model it says SD-10. If it would have been PL-12 from the start, there would be more crying because it would be better than AMRAAM and at 12.3.
1 Like
Is it? Why not just call it SD-10 then lmao
According to Gaijin, PL-12 = SD-10
SD-10 = PL-12
SD-10A = PL-12A
