Why is it said that the current C5 in the test server is very poor?
Poor aerodynamics not only affects close-range off-axis shooting, but also has an impact on the accuracy of the missile. In the picture, all the missiles were released at low altitude at 1.5 Mach as empty shells (without fuel or power), and the guidance logic was to immediately maneuver to simulate the situation of a long-range missile with a downward drift.
Compared with the several modifications of the 120ab, the reduction of the wing area factor will weaken the lift-to-drag ratio of the missile at high angles of attack, requiring a larger angle of attack to achieve the same overload; the distance between the center of gravity and the wing surface will make it more difficult for the missile to pull out a high angle of attack. Combined, this results in a reduction in the missile’s low and medium-speed maneuverability (the impact will gradually decrease above Mach 2).
Below 1.3 Mach at low altitude, the available overload of the C5 drops below 10G. Such a drifting missile can be easily pulled over by a head-on maneuver, and even missiles with a slightly higher actual speed do not pose much of a threat.
Although high-altitude missiles can fly faster, due to the decrease in air density, their maneuverability at the same Mach number will be significantly reduced. A common phenomenon in actual 120ab high-altitude BVR situations is that the opponent’s 39 does not reach the target, but upon hearing the missile sound, they directly pull the stick straight, and the missile cannot keep up.
While Mica can pull 13g at around Mach 1, what’s more interesting is that Mica can achieve a similar turning capability to 771 just by using its wing surfaces without vectoring. At the same time, despite having a poorer straight flight speed retention, it loses less speed during turns compared to 771.
wouldnt it be best to focus on bug reporting poor missile performance in the dev server right now when its still work in progress and save the judgment for the live implementation?
I mean i get that curretnly the C5 might be a bad missile, but the patch is still far from release. We could wake up tommorow and C5 will be entirely different missile, making this kind of threads look dated.
This is why I don’t understand why people even complain on the performance of ‘dev server’ vehicles and weapons, these things get updated nearly every 24 hours whilst being tested on the dev server
I’d normally agree. But considering they changed it from being not too far off what C5 should be like IRL to being almost identical to the A/B. Is concerning
What will be the argument whenever the dev server ends and they still don’t undo the mediocre missile performance it currently has? Because we need to stop pretending that Gaijin often revisits their changes in their devservers, most of the time, they ‘touch’ numbers once and call it the day unless the community protests enough, cases being the F-15As first performance and ridiculous wingrip issue on its respective dev server, or the complete lack of spall liners to the CR3.
I never said do nothing and wait for live implementation. I think that focusing on bug reporting is the best course of action. See the main Mirage IIIS or the SLM threads, where people do some improssive work to make bug reports.
See, Morvran technically supports my point
To provide different example
If someone complained that first version of C5s on dev server is OP (and im like 90% there were such people) and now the C5 performs closer to 120A/B as morvran says, that comment too became dated.
I’m pretty sure people were preemptively yapping about C5 thinking its C8 or D model, with actually extended range instead “just” maneuverability upgrade. Then yapping was mostly of “why Eurofarts don’t get it too” variety.
Too many people crying that “AIM-120C was too OP” and that “even AIM-120A was OP enough already”, sadly.
Anyway, K-77M when? Since R-77-1 suffers and all of that. Maybe SU-57 while we are at it. I wonder if that would be enough for them.
People were screaming such even before they knew the performance of the missile to begin with, now its a side grade at best yet people still tout it like its a revolution.
Comical amount of grifting.
Oh, make no mistake; even if they admit and acknowledge that it’s barely a sidegrade, they will still claim that “since A is OP already, that means C is still OP even as a side grade”.
alot of people cry about C-5 but its basically a 120A/B with 0.3 seconds guidance delayed
its basically the same on everything and people cried about it being “OP” so gaijin nerfed it
turns out its not even that “OP” that people say and now its basically a non-meaningful sidegrade
Turns out “us mains” were not the issue all along
Its never the issue its just a welcome excuse russia mains use when russia overperforms compared to the US
You know the drill;
If U.S overperforms Russia > “U.S is OP, Russia suffers”
If Russia overperforms U.S > “U.S is still OP, Russia actually suffers, it’s just that U.S players are so bad that we do better than them on worse vehicles.”
Russia always suffers, U.S is always OP. Statistics don’t matter, technical capabilities don’t matter, nothing ever matters at all. There is a narrative and nothing will ever change it.
yep poor underperforming russia players with their decade newer equipment are just smarter, better and more handsome than those dumb US players
2s38 vs hstvl
thats like 4 decades?
But you see because we get nerfed jhcms that acts like soviet hmd that means our aircraft are actually contemporaries!