The real meteor isn't that fast irl, but it achieves its range and lethality compared to other missiles by having a ramjet engines that kicks in after the rocket is done burning, which can sustain thrust throughout the entire flight, maintaining its top speed Much further into it's flight. Given that the way aircraft defeat bvr missiles is by bleeding them of the energy slowly, this missiles ability to regenerate that energy for a surprisingly long time after launch gives the opponent aircraft a much smaller window to bleed its energy in, and let's it take much more energy much further into it's flight
The jet ‘only’ burns for about 45s-1min, so not all the way to the target unless at close range, but it can maintain high Mach numbers for a long time. I’ve seen a graph a while ago (no idea how accurate it is) comparing it to an aim120, and basically the 120 had a greater acceleration and achieved a higher peak speed, but the meteor maintained a high speed for a very long time.
That explosion freeze frame reminded me of how they were able to fix the exact explosion point of Malaysian 17 by an SA-11 by the sound of the explosion triangulated from the cockpit microphones. Eerie.
@@Bob10009 Absolutely. In fact, as gruesome as it sounds, one of the ways they were able to ID the exact weapon was from the shape of fragments removed from the body of the pilots. Gruesome work, but critical intel.
The missile was going MACH 5.2 at the time of impact (from 120nm), so I am confident in that it would be able to hit the same target 140 nm away like the AIM54.
@@anonymous17367 but the meteor doesn't have a solid rocket, it's got a ramjet engine, which means it could probably have an electric generator, much like a plane.
@@sixaout1982 it does have a solid rocket that burns for the first few seconds, getting it up to speed, and the then empty rocket is used as the combustion chamber for the ramjet. I doubt they would put a generator on it, it is likely much cheaper and simpler to just use a big battery. Less failure points too.
Meteor in this seems to be unrealistic, IRL the Meteor's range comes from the fact that it can throttle its engines depending on target distance altitude etc. I doubt an air to air missile can achieve mach 10. I do understand that they cant model it right now however due to dcs limitations.
Mach is relative to altitude, it can't hit mach 10 on the deck but I'd definitely say its possible at 80k+ feet. Not that it would be the most efficient way and would actually be used in that way, but possible.
The real missile is Mach 4 to 5 at best. It's not necessarily faster than an amraam, it's just got better ISP and a throttleable ducted rocket. Good for NEZ, not necessarily for top speed or range.
For a given mass of propellant a higher Isp should translate to longer range but there's vehicle drag to take into account as well as trajectory. I don't think there's any info about the relative sizes of the motors in AMRAAM and Meteor but a trivial analysis would suggest the latter should have the greater range if they're roughly comparable.
@@trolleriffic well there's not much data related to the maximum range of these missiles against large slow moving targets in optimal conditions, one can also assume that the conventional solid rocket on the amraam would allow the missile to loft to a higher altitude. This would result in less drag, but I cannot say with any level if certainty if this would give the amraam an advantage. Even if it did, this range advantage would only be useful against very easy targets. The meteor is most certainly the superior weapon against agile aware targets. While again this doesn't really say much, the publicly available figures list "greater than 160 km" for the AIM-120D, and "greater than 100 km" for the Meteor (I'm aware that these are not at all reliable). The loft profile of he AMRAAM could POSSIBLY be the reason for this. You never know...
@@EEEEEEE354 Good point about lofting. That should go a long way to overcoming the Isp limitations of a solid rocket compared to a ramjet. You can operate ramjets at very high altitudes but I presume they would have to be designed around that requirement which I doubt is the case for Meteor. Not much point making it work brilliantly at 80,000ft if it compromises the performance at low altitudes.
@@trolleriffic yeah I could probably operate pretty high up, but you'd choke the inlet a fair bit and lose a lot of performance. I guess us civilians (presumably) will never know the true performance for comparison...
The Meteor does have a smart system which controls the fuel burn of the motor to get the most efficient kinetic range out of the missile and decides whether or not to reserve any fuel to counter any manoeuvres of the target in the terminal phase
meteor missile is ramjet，its cruise speed is less than 3 mach，its cruise power time can be longer than 1 minter，so it can fly more distance，not faster high speed。
@@Mike_Romeo You mean like literally every other number you'll ever see in military aviation? Propaganda works both ways - you can both downplay and exaggerate for a tactical advantage. Only thing we do know is that it's likely never correct.
That damn thing has a /20k foot/ loft to it's launch. Jesus. And it has a ramjet engine? Does it come with a PASSPORT? God. The US is /really/ dangerously behind the BVR Missile curve, aren't we. It's like they made the 120 and said "Eh, we're done for a generation. No one will make better." OOF. AND it had energy to spare from a 121.6nm launch. Meaning this damn missile's greatest limitation is the RADAR RANGE OF THE LAUNCHING AIRCRAFT.
This isn't the max range at all. This is just the indicated range to fire at. No actual testing, not pushing any limits. Only 1 launch. Didn't even try to do a launch further than that to see what happened. Target was even closing so the range was actually even less. Didn't point the target away from you to see how far it could follow the target either.
The “real” effective range, however, must take plausible detection of missile link and different counter actions into account. It is more or less foolish to fire at maximum kinetic range for any BVR-weapon unless you shoot at civil air traffic. I have tried the meteor in a Real simulator. It is unbelievably effective.
I doubt thats possible, i assume by heavy you mean planes like the c-130, c-47/dc-3 737 etc? But only one of those is flyable by a person. And since trying to push any of these planes through the soundbarrier will take drastic measures of whoever is flying, itll be quite impossible to have AI fly one of these planes through the soundbarrier
@@grimreapers It's not just the miss rate. In reading accounts of air to air battles from Viet Nam and the Middle East a significant number of missles simply malfunction. Not just sparrows but aamrams too.
I think missile electronics of the 2010s aren't comparable to 60s era weapons and a Meteor missile could easily hit a giant airliner at the given parameters, but of course realistically missiles don't always work as intended.
It was full of sick orphans on their way to Disneyland for a Make A Wish holiday. Unfortunately one of them talked shit about GR on Hoggit so they needed teaching a lesson.
I am a bit surprised by the 140nm range of the Phoenix. I thought it had at most a bit over 100nm and to think we retired this weapon with not real replacement.
140nm under the most favorable conditions you could ask for, with assumed battery life leftover for terminal guidance. 80-100nm is a more realistic average.
The reason why it was retired without replacement is because a missile like the phoenix is only useful at extreme range versus subsonic bombers. A fighter can just turn and burn, which is what was shown in simulations and what actually happened the one time it was successfully fired in combat by the US. For missiles at the 100nm kind of range you need much higher speed or much less launch warning. The Aim-120 for example is a smaller and more aerodynamic missile which attains the same peak mach the phoenix did, but even there in order to push the range out further they cut down the flight surfaces in the C model onward to reduce the drag further to give it better speed for a longer distance (which is why it had increased effective range).
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 The missiles didn't fail to track the Iraqi MiG-25 due to maneuvers, the rocket motors failed. The pilots reported this themselves. The AIM-54 got the nickname of "Phoeni-bomb" due to this occasional problem. That's what happens when you leave equipment sitting idle for years. On the other hand, nearly every aircraft the Iranian Tomcats killed was with Phoenix. This includes helicopters, attackers, fighters and Foxbats.
The Phoenix and the Tomcat were retired at a time when the US defense complex thought we wouldn't have real peer adversaries for 20+ years; as part of this, it was assumed that nobody would match the moving target of AIM-120 capabilities, much less leapfrog it. This was, of course, a mix of arrogance, wishful thinking and motivated reasoning. That being said, the writing was on the wall more than a decade earlier: Cheney killed the F-14D in 1991 and his buddies killed all future Tomcat development in the mid-'90s, and nothing else could carry the Phoenix (all variants were highly integrated with the AWG-9, it weighed 1000 lbs and the bespoke launch rail weighed another ~150lbs so everything but the F-15 was physically not going to happen). NASA successfully integrated a modified version of the AIM-54C+ ECCM/Sealed (and only that variant, as everything else needed oil pumped from the plane to the missile that the F-15 didn't have hardware to supply) and the launcher from the F-14D into one F-15 and did fitment checks with the missile on effectively a modified centerline pylon, but never any test shots or even captive carry before the funding for the Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed project was cut.
Depending on what it's flying through. Fire it way up into space and it would be decidedly subsonic since the speed of sound in the interplanetary medium is of the order of tens of km/s due to the very high temperatures. Of course the engine wouldn't work outside the atmosphere. The temperature thing is why Mach numbers are higher at altitude where it's colder than at sea level while the variation in air density has no effect.
They can guess at the meteor performance and make sure it is breathtakingly good but they cant guess at an r-77-2 and get it to be SLIGHTLY competitive....HHHMMM?
@@four-dimensionalperson AMRAAM D has a 10km higher max range but it’s chances of getting there are next to nothing, it requires optimal conditions in terms of airspeed, altitude, weather, air pressure etc, whereas meteor is much, much, much more efficient. It’s no escape zone and practical max range is far superior. Additionally, I’d do some research into the testing of the Meteor. It’s official capabilities still haven’t and won’t be released, but it’s 150km range is actually ‘150km+’, it’s likely max range is in excess of 250-300km under ideal conditions. It truly out classes the AMRAAM, the Americans need a new missile design as opposed to updating an old one.
these mods/ better said skins are shit. Its always like f15c from fcs behaviour with ugly cockpit and a skin from outside. So many bullshit mods for dcs out there...also the dogfight shit grom growling sidewinder f22 vs j20 its like skin vs skin wohtout any airframe behaviour...sucks
The real meteor isn't that fast irl, but it achieves its range and lethality compared to other missiles by having a ramjet engines that kicks in after the rocket is done burning, which can sustain thrust throughout the entire flight, maintaining its top speed Much further into it's flight. Given that the way aircraft defeat bvr missiles is by bleeding them of the energy slowly, this missiles ability to regenerate that energy for a surprisingly long time after launch gives the opponent aircraft a much smaller window to bleed its energy in, and let's it take much more energy much further into it's flight
The jet ‘only’ burns for about 45s-1min, so not all the way to the target unless at close range, but it can maintain high Mach numbers for a long time.
I’ve seen a graph a while ago (no idea how accurate it is) comparing it to an aim120, and basically the 120 had a greater acceleration and achieved a higher peak speed, but the meteor maintained a high speed for a very long time.
@@Sir_Budginton that's still a very long time in my eyes
Roger ramjet not modelled in DCS so they just had to pump up he speed and reduce the drag...
@@djkyte5400 given an aim-120 will only burn for 8 seconds, that's a long time indeed
Roger Ramjet :-D
AA missile on passenger aircraft is peak optics.
Russians have experience in that
That explosion freeze frame reminded me of how they were able to fix the exact explosion point of Malaysian 17 by an SA-11 by the sound of the explosion triangulated from the cockpit microphones. Eerie.
That and all the shrapnel holes in the front of the wreckage….
@@Bob10009 Absolutely. In fact, as gruesome as it sounds, one of the ways they were able to ID the exact weapon was from the shape of fragments removed from the body of the pilots. Gruesome work, but critical intel.
@@VagabondTexan Jesus.. Respect to anyone with the mind for that.
@@VagabondTexan I think there were fragments with the missiles S/N embedded in the body of the captain.
Really gruesome
The missile was going MACH 5.2 at the time of impact (from 120nm), so I am confident in that it would be able to hit the same target 140 nm away like the AIM54.
Battery life is the main factor
@@anonymous17367 but the meteor doesn't have a solid rocket, it's got a ramjet engine, which means it could probably have an electric generator, much like a plane.
Also, launch at 121, but how far did target fky towards missile during missile fkight time?
@@sixaout1982 it does have a solid rocket that burns for the first few seconds, getting it up to speed, and the then empty rocket is used as the combustion chamber for the ramjet.
I doubt they would put a generator on it, it is likely much cheaper and simpler to just use a big battery. Less failure points too.
Yeh but you have other considerations, Battery, Radar lock range.
Meteor in this seems to be unrealistic, IRL the Meteor's range comes from the fact that it can throttle its engines depending on target distance altitude etc. I doubt an air to air missile can achieve mach 10. I do understand that they cant model it right now however due to dcs limitations.
Mach is relative to altitude, it can't hit mach 10 on the deck but I'd definitely say its possible at 80k+ feet. Not that it would be the most efficient way and would actually be used in that way, but possible.
A380 just needs to “notch dive” 😂
Passengers throwing out their tinfoil plates of the in-flight service act as chaff dispensers.
As a comercial pilot, that scene where thee missile hits the Airbus gave me a new nightmare.
Uh oh…Airbus will NOT be pleased about their A380 being shot down.
The real missile is Mach 4 to 5 at best. It's not necessarily faster than an amraam, it's just got better ISP and a throttleable ducted rocket. Good for NEZ, not necessarily for top speed or range.
For a given mass of propellant a higher Isp should translate to longer range but there's vehicle drag to take into account as well as trajectory. I don't think there's any info about the relative sizes of the motors in AMRAAM and Meteor but a trivial analysis would suggest the latter should have the greater range if they're roughly comparable.
@@trolleriffic well there's not much data related to the maximum range of these missiles against large slow moving targets in optimal conditions, one can also assume that the conventional solid rocket on the amraam would allow the missile to loft to a higher altitude. This would result in less drag, but I cannot say with any level if certainty if this would give the amraam an advantage. Even if it did, this range advantage would only be useful against very easy targets. The meteor is most certainly the superior weapon against agile aware targets.
While again this doesn't really say much, the publicly available figures list "greater than 160 km" for the AIM-120D, and "greater than 100 km" for the Meteor (I'm aware that these are not at all reliable). The loft profile of he AMRAAM could POSSIBLY be the reason for this. You never know...
By conserving fuel you can improve range. So against a slow target it could travel slower but longer.
@@EEEEEEE354 Good point about lofting. That should go a long way to overcoming the Isp limitations of a solid rocket compared to a ramjet. You can operate ramjets at very high altitudes but I presume they would have to be designed around that requirement which I doubt is the case for Meteor. Not much point making it work brilliantly at 80,000ft if it compromises the performance at low altitudes.
@@trolleriffic yeah I could probably operate pretty high up, but you'd choke the inlet a fair bit and lose a lot of performance. I guess us civilians (presumably) will never know the true performance for comparison...
Try launching it from farther. It looks like it had energy to spare.
The Meteor does have a smart system which controls the fuel burn of the motor to get the most efficient kinetic range out of the missile and decides whether or not to reserve any fuel to counter any manoeuvres of the target in the terminal phase
Got me by the thumbnail
LOL, that missile behaves oddly like the Phoenix did in pre-Heatblur days! Remember when it did mach 5 at 10000ft?
yup
meteor missile is ramjet，its cruise speed is less than 3 mach，its cruise power time can be longer than 1 minter，so it can fly more distance，not faster high speed。
Of course our british ace shoots down a french airliner, that's the reason I am subscribed! :)
lols
lofting the nose is usually better than lofting the missile. Your plane has better lift:drag
Yikes. That thumbnail really sends chills down my spine.
The latest AIM-120D holds the longest range air-to-air missile intercept. It happened in a test shot last year I believe.
Sure it not propaganda ?
@@Mike_Romeo I believe it was longest range air to air missile intercept _for the USAF._
@@Mike_Romeo You mean like literally every other number you'll ever see in military aviation?
Propaganda works both ways - you can both downplay and exaggerate for a tactical advantage. Only thing we do know is that it's likely never correct.
@@skatterpro Thats exactly what I wanted to point out.
True!
it would be cool if you try to shoot down a Mig-25 cruising at highest altitude possible from long range, to see how far it can go
I can’t help thinking about all of that lost luggage.
And whichever poor bastard has to sort through it when it's fished out of the sea. So many odd shoes...
You're just after the ladies underwear again! We've talked about your addiction before...
@@grimreapers 😳
Ah, the old days with my RAGE Eurofighter Typhoon :(
I am glad I was late to the airport......
Yikes this brought on some nasty memories of 'something similar' in RL...
Even the shockwave is modelled?!
Damn...
this meteor missile even not open ramjet nozzle，its too unreal
Make me reconsider my next vacation
That damn thing has a /20k foot/ loft to it's launch. Jesus. And it has a ramjet engine? Does it come with a PASSPORT?
God. The US is /really/ dangerously behind the BVR Missile curve, aren't we. It's like they made the 120 and said "Eh, we're done for a generation. No one will make better." OOF.
AND it had energy to spare from a 121.6nm launch. Meaning this damn missile's greatest limitation is the RADAR RANGE OF THE LAUNCHING AIRCRAFT.
This isn't the max range at all. This is just the indicated range to fire at. No actual testing, not pushing any limits. Only 1 launch. Didn't even try to do a launch further than that to see what happened. Target was even closing so the range was actually even less. Didn't point the target away from you to see how far it could follow the target either.
And the also introduce the IRIS-T?
Because I have see videos of Spanish and German planes launching that missile and is insane
Just seems to work like a sidewinder in DCS.
@@grimreapers FUCK
The “real” effective range, however, must take plausible detection of missile link and different counter actions into account. It is more or less foolish to fire at maximum kinetic range for any BVR-weapon unless you shoot at civil air traffic.
I have tried the meteor in a Real simulator. It is unbelievably effective.
who else remember MH flight 17 who crashed by a SAM?
Gripen E can go 50 000 feet high just as high as F 35
Hi cap question? What will supersonic heavy edition.
I doubt thats possible, i assume by heavy you mean planes like the c-130, c-47/dc-3 737 etc? But only one of those is flyable by a person. And since trying to push any of these planes through the soundbarrier will take drastic measures of whoever is flying, itll be quite impossible to have AI fly one of these planes through the soundbarrier
sadly we can't fly them :(
Cap pronounce Gripen like a native swede.
ofc Sweden FTW
Can I see this same simulation using Air Force 2?
France won't be pleased to know that their A380 was shot down.
eek It was the only plane that worked...
Blowing both wings off a superjumbo with a single AIM-120-sized missile also doesn't seemed to be modeled correctly.
cap casually committing war crime on the channel
RIP about 500 people
I think Air France will be in serious trouble here.
What DCS cannot model accurately is failure rates for missles. The sparrow failure rate in Viet Nam was 90+ %.
Completely agree. DCS does not seem to model the miss-rate like real life.
@@grimreapers It's not just the miss rate. In reading accounts of air to air battles from Viet Nam and the Middle East a significant number of missles simply malfunction. Not just sparrows but aamrams too.
Oh I didn’t know that.
I think missile electronics of the 2010s aren't comparable to 60s era weapons and a Meteor missile could easily hit a giant airliner at the given parameters, but of course realistically missiles don't always work as intended.
Let's wait for the TYPHOON in 2 weeks haha
Mach 9.6'ish
Thumbnail: war crime
To be fair, it was being flown by General Esperanza, so....yippee kai yay, mother*
That’a a court-marshalin’
I hope that thumbnail was a jet full of terrorists lol
Guess that wasnt just the thumbnail rip
It was full of sick orphans on their way to Disneyland for a Make A Wish holiday. Unfortunately one of them talked shit about GR on Hoggit so they needed teaching a lesson.
It was a pane full of baddies
Presses F....
If this took place in ace combat you would get 250 points and it wouldn't be considered a war crime :p
Don't those intakes in the missile actually impose noticeable drag on the aircraft when carried, especially in a typical loadout number of them?
The intakes have covers until fired so drag is minimal
Everyone pay attention we have a genius here
@@Omar-df3uk www.aerosociety.com/news/flight-of-the-meteor/
no expert, I just read a lot
I am a bit surprised by the 140nm range of the Phoenix. I thought it had at most a bit over 100nm and to think we retired this weapon with not real replacement.
140nm under the most favorable conditions you could ask for, with assumed battery life leftover for terminal guidance. 80-100nm is a more realistic average.
The reason why it was retired without replacement is because a missile like the phoenix is only useful at extreme range versus subsonic bombers. A fighter can just turn and burn, which is what was shown in simulations and what actually happened the one time it was successfully fired in combat by the US.
For missiles at the 100nm kind of range you need much higher speed or much less launch warning. The Aim-120 for example is a smaller and more aerodynamic missile which attains the same peak mach the phoenix did, but even there in order to push the range out further they cut down the flight surfaces in the C model onward to reduce the drag further to give it better speed for a longer distance (which is why it had increased effective range).
@@jimmehjiimmeehh9748 The missiles didn't fail to track the Iraqi MiG-25 due to maneuvers, the rocket motors failed. The pilots reported this themselves. The AIM-54 got the nickname of "Phoeni-bomb" due to this occasional problem. That's what happens when you leave equipment sitting idle for years.
On the other hand, nearly every aircraft the Iranian Tomcats killed was with Phoenix. This includes helicopters, attackers, fighters and Foxbats.
@@kibathemechanic4967 Notice the word SUCCESSFULLY.
The Phoenix and the Tomcat were retired at a time when the US defense complex thought we wouldn't have real peer adversaries for 20+ years; as part of this, it was assumed that nobody would match the moving target of AIM-120 capabilities, much less leapfrog it. This was, of course, a mix of arrogance, wishful thinking and motivated reasoning. That being said, the writing was on the wall more than a decade earlier: Cheney killed the F-14D in 1991 and his buddies killed all future Tomcat development in the mid-'90s, and nothing else could carry the Phoenix (all variants were highly integrated with the AWG-9, it weighed 1000 lbs and the bespoke launch rail weighed another ~150lbs so everything but the F-15 was physically not going to happen).
NASA successfully integrated a modified version of the AIM-54C+ ECCM/Sealed (and only that variant, as everything else needed oil pumped from the plane to the missile that the F-15 didn't have hardware to supply) and the launcher from the F-14D into one F-15 and did fitment checks with the missile on effectively a modified centerline pylon, but never any test shots or even captive carry before the funding for the Phoenix Missile Hypersonic Testbed project was cut.
Air France should sue this channel
should you fire at it with the target cold? is kinda unfair because the target is getting closer to the missile.
Missile ranges are advertised this way
This is a best case range, target hot, high and fast
How are you gonna do the a380 dirty like that. Any any other airliner would be fine 😭😭
i love u bro
why not use another military aircraft like why attack an innocent A380 what it do to you besides get you to America or Canada or Australia in luxury .
...because it's huge and has the RCS to match, as stated?
only one with a big enough RCS
roughly 8.249109 mach
Depending on what it's flying through. Fire it way up into space and it would be decidedly subsonic since the speed of sound in the interplanetary medium is of the order of tens of km/s due to the very high temperatures. Of course the engine wouldn't work outside the atmosphere. The temperature thing is why Mach numbers are higher at altitude where it's colder than at sea level while the variation in air density has no effect.
Max range of R-37?
will investigate.
I see a A380 about to get hit by a missile I instantly click.
5500 Knts is 6329 mph which is mach 8.3
mach is related to not just speed but altitude and air pressure
Christ that F15 overlay for the HUD and MFDs looks awful
😁👍⚔️📡🎇🎱🏳️👍
Yeah not a fan of the thumbnail or shooting down airliners Cap. Next time use a B-52.
Yup fair point, didn't even think about that...
Wow it’s a game over the top sensitive people like you are what’s wrong with this world. Idiot
Why?
first
Can you try R77 or R27
rgr
I wouldn’t exactly call the Airbus A380 legenday
A lot of people would, albeit for reasons I don't quite understand. The 767, however, is a real beauty imo.
My dcs stops responding when loading into Sim
You have potato pc, a toaster edition.
They can guess at the meteor performance and make sure it is breathtakingly good but they cant guess at an r-77-2 and get it to be SLIGHTLY competitive....HHHMMM?
lols
Waiting AIM-120D for F-22A mod )
Meteor still vastly outperforms 120D, albeit this version with the Gripen is widly inaccurate.
@@bennperkins4006 I don't agree , Meteor have max range 150km , AIM-120D 160km ,
But I meen F-22A mod need AIM-120D mod .
@@four-dimensionalperson AMRAAM D has a 10km higher max range but it’s chances of getting there are next to nothing, it requires optimal conditions in terms of airspeed, altitude, weather, air pressure etc, whereas meteor is much, much, much more efficient. It’s no escape zone and practical max range is far superior. Additionally, I’d do some research into the testing of the Meteor. It’s official capabilities still haven’t and won’t be released, but it’s 150km range is actually ‘150km+’, it’s likely max range is in excess of 250-300km under ideal conditions. It truly out classes the AMRAAM, the Americans need a new missile design as opposed to updating an old one.
@@bennperkins4006 not agree , US , Russian and Chinese specialist appreciate max range grom 100 to 150km max range , not more .
Can you give us link for that mod ?
th-cam.com/video/j1jHxWiUo8U/w-d-xo.html
Hey reaper - don’t you have a job ?
no
เม้นแรก
these mods/ better said skins are shit. Its always like f15c from fcs behaviour with ugly cockpit and a skin from outside. So many bullshit mods for dcs out there...also the dogfight shit grom growling sidewinder f22 vs j20 its like skin vs skin wohtout any airframe behaviour...sucks
Yup, but sadly it sells videos, so this is the weird world we are stuck in.
Probably not the best idea for a vid… just sayin
It’s just a game no need to be so hyper sensitive...... just saying