The game should be fun and balanced before being realistic. As i said modelling a firing computer quirk arbitrarily without modelling the reason for said festure is stupid. At that point model aim7/r27 failure rate as well
It was to ensure a kill on the enemy bomber.
It was both. Modelling it is stupid
There really is a nuance when it comes to it. I both agree and disagree. That’s why things like traction on surfaces, acceleration, gun handling and reload times are tweaked even if they’re not realistic.
At the moment we can speculate, but I am going to hazard a guess that the Aim-4Fs will only be useful in the beginning of the game at high altitude against players who are unaware that an SARH is coming for them and then the Aim-4Gs will be used to either third party someone, or force someone to make a turn slowing them down allowing you to open up on them with the Vulcan. They’re highly situational and it doesn’t help that the Aim-4F’s primary targets are not in the game (high altitude strategic bombers; I.E Tu-95, Tu-22 and Tu-160).
And you cannot really shoot at targets below you because ground clutter on your radar will prevent you from launching missiles at low flying high speed bombers like the Yak-28 instead. The F-106 would be really strong if her intended targets were in the game but sadly they’re not.
This is how it should work. And imo falcons are going to be quite good at 9.3. But the whole modelling firing in pairs is completely stupid as it has virtually no use ingame. In real life its a good thing ingame it s huge nerf
Theyre not. Theyre going to be incredibly good sub 1 kilometers. Dont fire them stuoidly and theyre just going to be good. Its at 9.3 after all. These are going to be the best close range missiles of the br. Only worse than r60s at 10.3/0
The Aim-4Fs are definitely situational, since at sub-1km you have barely any time to fire them for them to start moving in a head-on. The Aim-4Gs I’ll treat the same as my SRAAMs, just without the thrust vectoring and a smidgen more range.
You really dont. 0.50 delay on a cold target with 27gs of pull. Ive taken these showts with aim7e2s and aim7es. Yeah aim9gs are better but theyre on a dogshit platform and you get 2.
Aim4gs will be much better than sraams if you fire them over mach and with an height advantage
So with the Delta Dart in the game now, did a little testing. The Aim-4Gs can definitely hit targets above 1km when going mach, and when going 1200 or 1300km/h the Aim-4Gs can be launched from even 2km. At 2.5km it’ll barely hit a Mig-15 moving in a straight line. But you should be able to comfortably launch them between 800m to 1.5km without issue (compared to the SRAAMs being between 600m and 1km to hit anything)
1 Like
They have low drag and good maneuverability. Not end all and be all but they absolutrly seem capable
yeah they aint bad but they are seemingly some of the worst performing falcons for how “modern” it is.
obv it isnt modern but its only older than the GAR2B, Aim 26B and the XAIM4H
I believe its speed, “g pull” and seeker for the G are still wrong
and the few little bits such as guidance delay and lack of double fire of the missiles are also incorrect lol
It’s a missile from the 1950s or 60s. My expectations were pretty much right on the mark for how they’d perform. The doomposts about them being worse than 9Bs were dead wrong.
all you need to do is look at the raw stats and you can see its better than 9B in missile performance (proxy fuse is too complicated to really go into detail on)
It really isn’t. Much higher maneuverability alone already puts it a step above since you can’t just hold S to dodge.
The aiming delay could be fixed. The pack of double fire missile is a great choice. In real life it was a good thing with a purpose. Ingame it would be a pretty huge nreef providing nothing of value
The lack of proxy fuse makes me think it might be dodgeable by just barrel rolling like dcs tho lol.
Irl the proxy fuses of the times had idfy reliability(hence the aim9 stuck in the mig and the reverse engineering into the r3sl
Remains to be seen, but with 27G pull and very light weight I don’t see it being reliable.