This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
It’s not.
relevant how?
1 Like
Its NATO kit. Unless you have the french community backing you it’ll never be fixed it seems.
5 Likes
I always forget that the forum is going through difficult times, and yes, it’s normal to have nerfs because it’s a game, and the whole point is that there are no nerfs, the aim-120C5s are fine in terms of fight performance, the aim-120C7s (which are only in anti-air) have the right range, and the amraam-er with 40 km is not unrealistic at all.
They’re not wrong, using different missiles to report something is not something that should be taken into account. Trying to do napkin math by using missiles of similar dimensions is problematic.
Just redo the report without using unrelated missiles.
And another AIM-120 artificially nerfed without sources nor explanation. Lovely.
8 Likes
Liking and quoting before the french mafia censors you up lol
I dont even have anything against them personally. Just the only ones Gaijin is willing to accept sources from apparently. Everything else has to be a source document in Russian it seems.
That’s… That’s not how that works…
Also, i recommend not discussing moderation in public.
“Gaijin is only accepting reports from people who had over 50 rejected reports when first starting out and learning through trial and error, finally is accepting their reports, but gaijin isn’t accepting reports from people who are doing it for the first time.”
People only look at the recent reports I do forgetting that I had an abysmal acceptance rate the first year of bugreporting.
1 Like
Isn’t that the exact opposite in the case of the F5 though? They specifically rejected multiple NATO sources in favor of russian ones? I’m sure it could’ve changed of course. It just seems odd regardless.
6 Likes
+1
The Russians apparently had captured and flown an F-5 so the devs believe the truth was somewhere in between what the nato document states and the Russian documents state. The Russian documents state it performed better than the NATO documents did, so it isn’t like there was a motivation to nerf the F-5.
3 Likes
No, thats my point. The F5 over performs to a ridiculous degree.
The amraam uses the exact same rocket motor, the design is also basically identical, if the amraam er is performing worse in range and speed than the essm you don’t need anything else, the missile is clearly wrong.
1 Like
I don’t disagree that they’re likely very much the same in kinetic energy, but there may be something that prevents it from reaching the same range, could be something like battery time.
It’s still using the amraam sensors. I doubt it would have shorter battery time than sir launched amraams.
1 Like
Then what is the difference between essm and the amraam-er if motor is the same?
Amraam-er is using AIM120C8 seeker head while ESSM is SARH
5 Likes