You said it is a buff so either you’re conflicting with your own statements or dont know what youre saying, and also please dont use statshark as a source, missile performance isnt exactly accurate. If you want to prove it, you can use custom missions and modify them missiles to be able to show energy retention which is better than what it is shown there.
it is very inaccurate when it comes to pull
it is fairly good for range other than not fully simulating the wobbling behavior, which would affect the current aim120 more than the old one due to the pid changes and drag coefficient
as such if anything in game they are closer or the old one out ranges the new one
a change that has a very tiny unnoticeable “buff” along with a very massive and obvious nerf should not be called anything other than a nerf
5 Likes
Well they barely pull 25g off rail atm with an incorrect increase in guidance delay so maybe don’t give it the release performance but meet in the middle so it pulls 30 ish g off the rail.
hes just wrong on that
it was limited to 35gs on release
3 Likes
Pretty sure it wasnt or was still pulling much more than previously the nerf, otherwise wouldnt have been nerfed in the first place.
1 Like
Thats just a claim with no backing. Once again isnt a source for proving a buff wasnt a buff. You can take a look at however way you want to, or spin it, the nerf wasnt detrimental as much as just putting the missile where it supposed to be
1 Like
it was limited to 35Gs since before it was added to live
the limit was changed from 40 to 35 Gs on June 6th, and hasnt changed since
the update released on June 19th
so no, AIM-120 has always been limited to 35Gs since it was added
the only reason it pulls less on live than it did when it was released was due to the fin AOA and area being nerfed without any sources or reasoning, to the extent that it is unable to hit the 35G limit anymore
3 Likes
LMAO
you have never used an AMRAAM, and you are saying that having almost 50% less fin AOA isnt detrimental?
if it was putting the missile to its IRL maneuverability there would be a source attached that supports the current implementation, but there isnt
5 Likes
Ask the devs, they’ll provide you one lol.
I don’t think you get the point of this post and subsequent thread. No one here has claimed the missile is so bad it is unusable. You are arguing in bad faith.You are trying to make it seem like we want the AMRAAM to be a god missile and it is unusable in its current state.
They never provided a source or a bug report when making the AOA change. There was a report for the guidance Delay change. Therefore it is reasonable to assume they were most likely trying to make sure it never hit over 40 to 45 Gs but they overdid it.
Finally, if you’re gonna keep arguing in bad faith by misrepresenting people’s arguments, acting like the Devs will actually answer with a source if we ask them, and that the standard of bug reporting has no flaws then please stop posting in this thread.
1 Like
Also quick note,
Rafale dominated more than eurofighter becaue eurofighter got 1-2 nerfs. Rafale got several buffs in addition to flight performance, min maxing the Mica’s performance. Mica already a great close range kinematic missile with TVC allows players less time to get to notches, the seeker isn’t special against notches, it just sees smaller POV than most seekers. But not by that much, if anything very little, so if you stay in the notch, there you go mica will just fly right by.
The seeker did little to help but the mica 8x vs 6x Aim-120 eft was always destined to lose as soon as the rafale got more pylons
Rafale also had better avionics like 360 maws iirc which eft lacks and aesa radar.
Su30sm with R-77-1s seems to be more reliable or fun or whatever you want to call it but its simply a fat boat of a plane with 12x R-77-1s
The only saving grace of amraams is the damn MRML pylons for the F-15C GE which i fully support, which can allow for aggressive plays and impacts.
Then if it is usable why the complaints? Lack of WVR performance which you keep bringing up is not the straight up solution which most of you fail to understand. You compare to missiles with higher G or AOA performances or seeker performances, lacking the fact the jets enabled mica / R-77-1 to be in better positions.
Before the addition of such jets Aim-120 dominated completely fine. So stop telling me im trying to make it seem like its unsustainable but the fact that you guys come after a year later and could not dominate the meta any longer with aim-120 platform jets, and bring up these issues now is funny to me.
1 Like
Again, this isnt bad faith. You can pressurize the devs, they did it the same way for other questionable additions to jets like su30sm with double pylons which revealed something pretty interesting on what devs think.
Also if such sources do not exist, who is anyone to stop such nerfs? You do realize most of any modeling is based on calculations on approximation.
So it defeats the whole purpose of crying about muh aim-120 pull nerf when in reality its upto devs for balance purposes, WHICH F-15C and F-15E continued to dominate till rafale’s arrival
Simply give the F-15C GE the MRML pylons, and increase missile count from 8->12 and you’ll notice the difference
Here are 2 examples of jets that have/had same missile but completely perform differently to either past buffs etc, or a jet that has the same missile n just have 10x better fm performance or carrying capabilities.
-
Mirage 2000, that carried Mica ems, with x6 Micas, could not dominate the meta as much as F-15C or E could till late December. Rafale came, and addition to several buffs along with more micas, topped the game because the fm and carrying ability made such more noticeable difference and claimed the meta again due to fm, aggro capabilities of missiles
-
Su27sm. In the beginning of fox3 release, su27sm got R-77 buffs. It was a little nicer but did not change much other than some drastic range buff which was still nearly useless because, there was that god awful radar N001VEP, and the poor flight model performance. What helped the su27sm become a competent 13.7 jet over time was the double pylons, new engines, better flight model performance and the tws+ update which helped the poor radar atleast update targets from 8s > 4s. Before those refreshing buffs, the jet lacked the ability to contest the air dominance in 16v16 because of piss poor aggro ability and flight model.
The issue is tho, if you do not play the US now, you will kinda have to suffer because if they receive MRML pylons on their F-15CGE, the should have some what better endurance in matches, compared to Eurofighers and gripens.
Additionally, they have been waiting on FM’ buffs for a quite a while since F-15C family underperforming quite a bit. These overall buffs could simply change where the aim-120 sits at imo with the jet
5 Likes
One of the sources was literally raytheon themselves LOL im sure if anyone they would know. and any many other changes have been made with just one source. Jane is also a well known and too my knowledge very credible and according to gajin authored works are eligible for changes to be made so there goes that entire point. not to mention the literal DOD (source 6) and all of this was back before the big AI craze back a few years ago. but the whole thing does seem to be written by AI so i can give you that
sure the airforce magazine and the warzone arent credible completely so those arent good resources and wouldnt count towards data
a lot of the sources are not real
iirc it cites a non existent brochure or if it exists it is not attached or linked
janes is explicitly not allowed to be used even as a secondary source for bug reports due to numerous inaccuracies
it was not attached to the report, and does not seem to actually exist
I don’t think you understand how bug reports work. Look at this.
my r-77 maneuverability bug report for example:
You see how there’s a section where it says there’s information that’s not visible to the public, and only the bug reporter themselves and the mods can see it? Notice how its absent on their bug report
That means they did not attatch anything themselves outside of the screenshots that are already public to everyone.
That means their bug report cites no real sources and is nonsense.
5 Likes
I left my beview romb. I think it’s time everyone does the same.
pookie got reported for account sharing it is OVER for you!!
3 Likes
Honestly thank god I am tired of his shit.
You can do it with MICA too. RWR also beeps when you get shot by MICA.