if you dont understand how the game work is not my problem, your feelings means nothing… the seeker is the same whenever you like it or not. Seems someone feelings were hurt.
4 Likes
You may have not read this, so I will repeat it for you.
W0ckySlush
They may have the same seeker, but they do not behave the same in game.
Its best to refrain from commenting on vehicles/equipment you personally have not used yourself. Its extremely easy to make assumptions based off of the stat cards.
I personally have a lot of experience with both AIM-9L and Python 3 missiles and can tell you from first hand experience the AIM-9L rejects flares much easier than the Python 3.
An example of this: The R-73 and Magic 2 have the same exact form of IRCCM, the same IRCCM FOV and the same Rejection threshold but preform VASTLY different in game as the Magic 2 IRCCM is noticeably stronger.
We only have one side of the story, what happens server-side is 100% a mystery to the player and only accessible by Gaijin. So to claim they are exactly the same because your local files are the same is just incorrect.
Feel free to look me up in game to confirm the nations and jets i’ve used. I clearly know how the game works considering my stats in these vehicles.
I have first hand experience with both AIM-9Ls and Python-3s
You on the other hand, do not.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Again whenever you have experience means nothing, we have eveidence that they have the same seeker that hold much more value than you “experience”.
It isnt stronger, they are also the same in this case, the magic “feel” stronger because this type of irccm suit it better with the flight performance of this missile, the much higher acceleration of the magic 2 just makes it much more harder to flare on time, again your experience doesnt mean that they have a different seeker.
Are you sure that you should be talking about stats?
2 Likes
Great points being made on all sides!
I agree I agree.
Hilarious you try to discredit me by cherry picking a stock vehicle.
Any further question about why your “datamine” doesn’t work for determining the proficiency of vehicles or equipment in game should be directed at a Technical Moderator. They will be able to better break down why this method is flawed and not acceptable.
In the meantime im going to leave another image for you to ponder. Im in the middle of stock grinding two perfect examples of what im presenting in the comments.
If the Python is a “Better AIM-9L” as a few of you seem to believe it is, why is it that its much easier to get kills with the vehicle that has stock AIM-9L compared to stock Python-3 on the same exact platform within the same exact BR range?
I’ve used python 3s on chinese vehicles/japanese/thai vehicles plenty. They are straight up a better 9L other than the slight difference in guidance delay.
Python 3 maneuvers much more, has better top end speed and has ridiculous acceleration. In what way are they worse than a 9L?
Also, anecdotal evidence is always much worse than pure, hard facts. My anecdotal evidence coincides with python 3s being better than 9ls, while yours suggest the opposite. Check gzabi’s datamines? You’ll find out the seeker head is the exact same, which they are. Python 3s vastly superior acceleration would mean that even in the same launch conditions with the same seekerhead, python 3 would be more resistant to flares as it would close in onto the target faster, which means it would see less flares sooner than the 9l.
I predict the reason why you’re having trouble with the python 3 is that you’re expecting too much out of them. If they had irccm (which the chinese late copy of them do, the pl-8b), then you would have a much better time with them as I’ve had. Even then, the normal pl-8/python 3 is still more than enough if it’s at the appropriate br. Python 3s at 11.3 are super fun, that’s where it truly shines.
match maker ofc, just getting lucky/unlucky. just do controlled testing in a custom battle, you will be able to quantify how much better the pl-8/python 3 is than the 9l.
1 Like
Getting back to the original topic, I definitely think the kurnass 2000 is overtiered at 12.3.
Either give it back fictional aim-7fs and keep it at 12.3, or lower it down to 12.0.
It’s literally a worse f-16a in every way at 12.3
Or move F16 and everything else up 0.3.
Because kurnass 2000 Vs FGR2 is just as bad
2 Likes
That isn’t even that far off a fair fight.
2 Likes
i have a lot of experience with both aim9Ls and python 3s and i can tell you that python 3s are more flare resistant than aim9Ls, faster acceleration = less time to target = less chance to get flared
the python 3 isnt just a better aim9L its an entirely different missile and needs to be used as such if you try to use a python 3 like an aim9L it wont perform as well as just using an aim9L would
Any further question about why your “datamine” doesn’t work for determining the proficiency of vehicles or equipment in game should be directed at a Technical Moderator. They will be able to better break down why this method is flawed and not acceptable.
Your prediction would be wrong.
2.5km MAX from rear/top aspect and 800m-1.2km in a head on.
The belief that:
“faster acceleration = less time to target = less chance to get flared”
Is a flawed way of thinking as there are tens of other factors that go into how flare resistant a missile is, one of them being how FAST a missile accelerates.
Too much speed = a stiffer missile = easier to drop tracking due to not being able to efficiently track a moving target.
Anyway, here are some posts with similar claims I have made:
1 Like
fortunately there is a simple solution to this problem, the python 3 has higher max G as well, so its not a stiffer missile, in fact its the opposite
also this is completely unrelated, this is based on the gimbal limits, seeker FOV and tracking rate of the missile, which are minimally different between the missiles
obviously there are many factors in how a missile performs, but my point is still valid
also all of these i can easily write off as either 1, that happens with all missiles or two, once again people trying to use python 3s as aim9Ls, which doesnt work because they are different missiles with different strengths
I thought you were against using datamined data to support conclusions?
also that firing setup just isnt a real situation
2 Likes
You dont need to datamine anything to obtain & calculate ballistic trajectory.
You can do the math displayed on the screen without mining into the game files.
You have eyes, you likely have a cellphone with a stop watch, you can open the game, fire the missile at different altitudes, speeds, angles and distances and obtain all the info you need about the missile itself based off these results.
and erm acktually… it clearly is considering it works?
Go take AIM-9L, fire it on a bot in the same way displayed on webpage, and do the same with a Python 3.
The Aim-9L will land, the Python will miss.
how do you think statshark got the data for how those missiles perform, gaijin sure didnt give it to them
cant do math with no numbers
and thats why we can calculate a missile shot that would be impossible in game? because to get good data you kinda do need to data mine
2 Likes
okay sure i will lock a missile on a target that is 3000m directly above me while only pointing at a 12 degree angle with a missile that only has a seeker FOV of 45 degrees
??? you cant even fire a missile in this situation man
oh wow look now my missile hits and yours doesnt, that means mine is better right? wow
or we can just go back to what ive said multiple times
Oh yes for Igor about it. This will probably go up to 13.0 with the next be changes tho. I still don’t understand why it’s at its current br with the TT F16A being worse at 13.0