I strongly agree with you and lets give some pressure to gaijin so they make thing right！！
2 Likes
你說得一針見血
跟本蝸牛狗是從毛子的理想視角出發去看美國的東西
他媽的明明c5有更強的加速但竟然近距離可以比A和B慢，這是甚麼吃席道理
然後即使在遠距離也不過是比A和B快一兩秒。不單改掉c5的高拋軌跡還改c5的攻角
上個版本出的R771比R77加強超多
然後現在出的c5跟本不是玩家所期望的強度
2 Likes
This is a little research done by DCS players a pretty enjoyable read and it does reference real sources, although the validity for game implementation is Dubious at best its a fun read nonetheless.
http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf
there is some interesting stuff in there
I would like to see their sources
because even just section 3 with proper sources could be the basis for bug reports on both aim120a/b and aim120c
they list aim 120a as having a 6 second boost and 5 second sustainer while in game it is 1.7 and 5.3 seconds respectively
they also give the same duration for 120C booster but over 1000N more force
There are references in the bottom. But still i would like to remind its a 10 year old document by a bunch of simnerds, although by my research there is a ton of conflicting info on the c-5 propulsion system WPU-16/B is a name ive seen quite a bit but i cant find anything WPU-6/B ive seen it in context of aim120a/b
I think aim120 should not be weaker than aim7 in terms of close range performance no matter what
Russia’s R77 to R77-1 have been significantly strengthened in almost all aspects, and I don’t think the increase in AIM120A/B to C is reasonable, whether based on game balance or reality
是啊，俄罗斯的R77到R77-1在几乎所有方面都得到了显著加强，我认为无论是基于游戏平衡还是现实，AIM120A/B到C的增加都是不合理的
anyway，Everyone can know that he is a Chinese who uses AI translation.But the question he responded to was indeed correct, wasn’t it？