Leaderboard

Dunno what the issue is? Its a game, let people have fun.

Greetings everyone, thanks to @BlueBeta that had the initial idea for the project (and helped with the whole BR tables) and with the help of @draghettoverde @Commuwunism for planes and tanks tables, we tried to create a BR system that would improve matchmaking and allow vehicles that are hard to balance to find a new place in the matchmaking and keep/make them viable. Problem: Right now many vehicles in each TT and type (Tank,Plane,Heli,Ships) are difficult to be balanced even with player statistics due the special weaponry, armour, mobility that they have. About this, the Solution idea is the following: -increasing the BR ceiling from 12.0 to 13.0 (or highter in future if needed) -adding an intermediate BR of 0.5 -adding a specific Ground RB Battle Rating mode for CAS/Bombers. Explanations per point -increasing the BR ceiling from 12.0 to 13.0 This would allow a decompression of ranks V to VIII that will allow a more playable matchmaker. Right now the main problem that many players are claiming is about the technological gap that afflicts some vehicles like early Jet and super props, Subsonic and Supersonic planes, modern tanks with laser range finder or thermal NVD that sometimes are too poor or too good for such BR. Not every nation would have a top 13.0 tank or plane because it's not a "must have" to enjoy a tech tree. Right now the problem found is that there are a forced "top tier" like the C1 Ariete or some Leclerc's variant that can't compete anyway against other top tiers. Same thing in the Plane's section with the Tornado or MiG-21 that can't do anything against F-16 for example. The crowded and compressed BR was in the past used due lack of top tier vehicles that lead to a long queue for the Match making, but right now there are a great choose of modern vehicles that can allow a decompression because in future many other planes can be added and, if needed, increase the spread over 13.0 as suggested now. Increasing a top rank will allow a more balanced matchmaker also thanks to next point of this suggestion. -adding an intermediate BR of 0.5 (that wouldn't require any change in matchmaking or anything similar) This would replace the current system of 0.3 & 0.7 and would allow vehicles to have a more reasonable and straightforward spacing between them and permit the matchmaker to match vehicles that are more balanced among them compared to the current situation. In this way some vehicle hard to balance like the Maus, the M4 Jumbo or planes like the F-104 or the Hunter can be more balanced because won't face too much stronger or weaker vehicles like nowdays. Quick example of the new 13.0 MM with 0.5 BR added. Here you can see just about Fighters planes of US/USSR and Italy tech trees top tiers. Right now Subsonic planes like the Sagittario 2 or the F-86K aren't played because they mostly face the 2 times supersonic planes like the F-4 Phantom or the MiG-23 aswell the G.91Y can't nothing against an F-5E or a MiG-21SMT. This because such kind of US/USSR planes are mostly used by the playerbase, many other "minor TT" are in this conditions with planes that are barely used in Air RB because it's not possible to fight. If you look at the same comparison done with the new BR system (0.5 planes higlighted with orange rectangles) you'll find a different and more playable situation for this type of planes that would face early supersonic planes that aren't armed so well and have no counter-measures like chaff/flares that makes a huge difference in fighting conditions. About this we created a Table with multiple tabs showing our point of view and how this system will afflict and change the BR equilibrium from Rank V to rank VIII that right now are the ones with more technological gaps. In addition we also suggest a separate BR system for CAS/Bombers. -New Ground RB Battle Rating mode for CAS/Bombers. This new BR system will allow to all Bombers and Attackers players to have a good BR in Air Battles and a fair opponent for tankers. The idea is to increase the BR up to 1.0 (or highter if needed) for those planes that are very good in Ground Battles but poor in Air ones. This would balance the economy too not penalizing the players who decided to use a bomber or a cas plane in Air RB. In this image you can see how the BR is dynamic and changes taking into account the CAS ability of the plane based in the efficency of the weaponry that the unit can bring in battle. In this way planes that in Air RB are poorly armed like these, can be more effective in Ground RB due the heavier loads. So this will have a benefit to all planes that have the same "basic flight performances" in Air RB (where nobody takes ground attack weaponry) but in Ground RB have a different and better loads, in this example you'll find the German and the Italian G91s and F-104G, the German ones have better CAS ability thanks to the Air to ground guided missiles that aren't carried by the Italian counterparts. BEAR IN MIND THAT THEESE TABLES ARE MEANT TO GIVE AN IDEA AND DO NOT SHOW ALL THE VEHICLES OR THE BRS THEY SHOULD GET so please, do not post "BRs wishlist of the vehicles" ,if you have other improvements just explain them. Let me know what you think and if you have any suggestion to improve, we will update it, but for now we would like to have a feedback thanks all!

Killing people and nuking: totally fine. Pillow with cartoon cleavage: unsafe for kids.

except we did. there are a tonne of RH and KMW demo vehiecles that could be added Leo 1A6 Leopard 2 AWiSS Leo 2A4 Evolution Leo 2A4 Revolution Leo 2A6 PSO TVM-Min/max (Pre-2A5) Leopard 2 Advanced Technology Demonstrator and if fantasy Jets like the 16AJ are allowed to exist or russian vehiecles that still havent concluded trails, then these tanks above can be added, no questions asked. So yes how about blaming the snail instead, ey?

Curved line is artificial engine thrust limit based on each drag index While F110-GE-400 Can make positive installed thrust up to 32785lbf at M 1.3 / S.L, artificial engine limitation cut down it's power near M 1.1 This artificial limitation is confirmed by official speech of Admiral Martain in 1987 Problem is, NAVAIR-01-F14AAP-1.1 is yet not confirmed as full-open sourced. Still it's shared on most network, using it as official tech data by GJ is not certain Requested FOIA to DOD/DON, but need some time for reply My conclusion is, as GJ always make aircraft as theoretical maximum specification and ignores engine configure or limitation(like MiG-21bis, BF-109G/DB-605A etc), F-14B/D should reverted its speed limit before 2.26.0.25 update that can thrust post airframe limit

Gaijin please. its getting a bit ridiculous. minor nations needs alot (namely IFVs and AA) but so much more. We've suffered through multiple updates of nothing new, except maybe a new Magach. but Israel doesnt need a new Magach, it needs some AA. the Machbet it ok, but just ok. how can you expect players to take it into top tier, its just not sufficient to deal with top tier aircraft. that gap will only grow so why not add they Spyder? I understand that it only fired Python-5s and Darby missiles. at this point you have added python 3s (in china for some reason) despite Israel designing the missile. We are well aware that Python-5s will be added eventually. why not add them to an AA platform for Israel that is really hurting. I understand Python-5s are not ready to be introduced in air. But on a ground AA platform with an IR missile I think we can understand and even agree that Israel needs something above the 9.3BR. similarly Japan and Italy are lacking in useful top tier AA platforms. The Type-93 is not the solution to top tier air despite it being over 10k Sl repair cost for a vehicle that is a meme more than anything else. It is moderately usefully at best. Italy has the only top tier gun AA platform while that is great it struggles in multiple ways. There are a plethora of vehicles you could add to the top tier AA of these minor nations. In its current state whoever gets on russias team gets to use CAS while anyone paired against them gets to get shot down at 37000 ft side climbing away from the battlefield. the pantsir should not have been added at this point in the Spyder was considered too strong, if the Otomatic was considered too strong to carry more than 8 rounds of APFSDS.

Abbiamo proposto il suggerimento che riguarda la possibile modifica dei BR. Oltre al citato nuovo BR +0.5 e l'estensione al 13.0, abbiamo inserito anche la proposta di BR separati per i CAS nelle RB aeree e RB terrestri con modifica specifica degli aerei identici (stesso modello) ma che hanno potenzialità di CAS differente. Gradiremmo la partecipazione di tutti e soprattutto di critiche che ne evidenzino le falle.

Well as i seen, when they say no more anime discussion, the missile and top tier discussion starts again.

Due to the upgrade of the F-4E Kurnass 2000, Israeli F-4Es cannot use AIM-7 anymore. All F-4E Phantoms in Israel were only capable of using AIM-7E-2 missiles. Israel's Phantom purchasing program (Peace Echo I-V, Peace Patch, Nickel Grass) took place from 1969 to 1976, and integration of the AIM-7F on the F-4E only occurred after its IOC achievement in April 1976. There is no evidence in subsequent sources that AIM-7F was integrated into Israeli Phantoms. On the contrary, there are only reports that Israel purchased AIM-7F for the F-15. Israel's F-4E Kurnass 2000 upgraded its radar to the APG-76, which does not have the CW illuminator. The problem is that up to the AIM-7E, only CW guidance was the only guidance option. The HPRF guidance mode was added from the AIM-7F onwards, but Israel only purchased AIM-7F for use on the F-15. and the AN/APG-76 radar itself was not designed to use AIM-7 missiles. The A-6F, which was originally designed to use the AN/APG-76, was planned to use AIM-120 and AIM-9L missiles. AN/APG-76's air to air mode only have MPRF mode, which cannot be used to guide AIM-7F in PD, which requires HPRF (or CW illuminator) From 1982, the responsibility for air superiority was taken over by F-15 and F-16, while F-4E was not equipped with AIM-7 and instead carried ground attack weapons for performing ground attack missions. F-4E Kurnass 2000 underwent a complete rewiring and mission computer replacement, and its ability to use AIM-7 missiles was clearly removed during this process due to incompatible radar and mission changes. (ACE-3 mission computer made by Elbit was originally designed for the F-16, but the problem is that IDF's F-16 has never used AIM-7.) And the report smin mentioned was written by me. Sources: The IAF Aircraft Series No.1 The F-4E Phantom II "Kurnass" USAF McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (Air Vanguard) McDonnell F-4 Phantom Spirit in the Skies Grumman Aircraft Since 1929 by Rene J Francillon Adaptation of AN/APG-76 multimode radar to the smuggling interdiction mission Israeli Phantoms: The Kurnass in IDF/AF Service 1969 - 1988 Israeli Phantoms: The Kurnass in IDF/AF Service 1989 until Today

I don't care about your perception of the "relationships", even Pakistan and India in a single tree make more sense than what you are proposing. As an Iranian I'm against this stupid Idea.

bro is not going to be second devserver stop asking dumb questions this question was answered many times for the mods, tomorrow probably we are going to have the server maintenance advise and wednesday the update.

What piques my interest here is the fact that the "future" missiles that the RDY could fire includes AMRAAM. Now the thing is considering they put the 530D will the devs include AMRAAM in payloads. I don't really care if they are put on the plane as they are less capable than the MICA but the question is worth to be asked.

This is now a third source on the RDY radar being able to use the Super 530D. I think at this point it's clear the option to use Super 530D is there. What's not so clear is the Super 530F.

I'm so incredibly tired of getting killed by CAS, it's a god damned joke. Just add tank only already.

Hello Currently the Swedish and Finnish tree does not have a Norwegian branch of aircraft or vehicles within its researchable tree. Norwegian vehicles (or any other nation outside of the above two inside the Swedish tree) are for the time being premium only for the tree. Making a Norwegian F-16 currently not possible or planned at this time. As we have already previously mentioned, the Gripen is within our plans in the future for the Swedish air tree.

Oh god we are gonna have the people who will be asking for India tree like Israel tech tree but with the attitude of Germain mains.

Friends! Ten days ago we asked you to share your key suggestions and complaints about the game in a special survey. As a result, we received 14,562 player submitted entries - many of them being very constructive. It is a very impressive number! Some submissions made a few pages of well organised bullet points. We are very grateful for such active support for the project and a desire to help us make War Thunder better! It is very difficult to process such a great amount of information. But we managed to isolate most of the repeating points and are already working hard on them. Economy and progression More than 90% of feedback entries touched issues with economy and progression. The majority of them were: repair costs and the ability to pay for it by being active in battles and performing specific actions. Including rewards for assisting enemy kills, kill-to-death ratio, point capturing in a team, repair and other help to teammates plus many others. A separate layer of concern was expressed about the time needed by new players to progress all the way up to the top-tiers. About one third of players are concerned with the current BR distribution and methods of assigning BR to a vehicle. As well as about the BR ranges of vehicles in battle. At least 4% of players also paid special attention to such topics as the need to purchase modules, the possibility to have free - perhaps lengthy but free - repairs, and many suggestions in not modifying or significantly rebalancing premium vehicles. All in all, we understand these concerns and will try to encompass ideas on most of them in the upcoming economy roadmap we promised to publish by June 14th. Gameplay About 10% of players also took time to share their ideas and observations about various gameplay issues in War Thunder. We are still assembling the full picture of those thousands of points, but have already focused in some of the most repeated ones: Locations. Especially their size and how susceptible they are to being shot-through in Ground battles. It is a very important topic. We have tried to study our maps over a long time, creating special tools like ‘heatmaps’ of deadly shots together with the player system of likes and bans. With the game growing and many new vehicles added many maps demonstrated either new issues, or older ones became too significant. We are already engaged in reviewing and ‘polishing’ all locations - and it is sure to be part of the upcoming game improvements. Many of you spoke about the inconvenience of night battles. Though we already tried to make some improvements there - like lowering their appearance probability, addition of illuminating shells,- it turned out not to be enough. We will also look into new solutions here. Some other given complaints were about aviation streaks in Arcade Ground battles, ideas how to improve voting mechanics for favourite maps, and ways to improve the survivability of stock vehicles both in ground and air battles. The was a separate pool of ideas related to PvE modes and ways to improve their gameplay and attraction. Naturally we received literally thousands of ideas on specific vehicle models, modules, weapons and features. It is impossible even to list them all here. Which is actually good - since War Thunder is a game about military vehicles, so it is expected they are in the focus. We are carefully studying all feedback and will try to look at it from a fresh point of view. As mentioned, we are still in the process of analysing all of the survey entries and picking up more and more points from these worth examining and doing some extra to work on them. Currently the survey form is closed, but we will continue to make similar general broad feedback polls on the game in the future again. We will also continue to actively listen to your feedback on the forums. Our plan is to conduct such intensive ‘general questions and suggestions’ sessions at least once every 3 months. Some of your suggestions can be put in the game quite quickly - and War Thunder game design and development teams are already working on them. Some will require a more complex approach, and we will plan for them in our roadmap. We will also cover more about these in the news for the game. So since we are planning to release a large economy and progression changes roadmap by June the 14th, we hope to meet many of your wishes on abovementioned issues there. By the way, we have just published a detailed Q&A for video content creators, you might find the answers interesting and relevant to some of your points in them (link). Conclusion Once again, thank you for taking the time and effort to share your thoughts! We have always tried to pay attention to your feedback, but getting such a massive pool of information from players all over the world - is a limitless source of inspiration and motivation for us. Do not be upset if you don’t find your exact points in the summary above - it comprises the most repetitive ideas, but we do and are studying them all. We will work diligently to look at issues from various viewpoints and try to improve as much as possible to allow you to continue to enjoy War Thunder for many years to come.

这是欧美这边最喜欢的"what about"话术，强行转移话题强行对比。言下之意”xxx都还没好起来呢，凭什么你能好起来“。只要理解了这点，你就知道为什么国外效率奇慢无比了，不是没有效率，而是这种话术过于有效导致内耗严重互相拖后腿。 因为xxx问题确实存在，你表示那个问题和这个无关对方会转进到你否定xxx问题不存在，当你解释那个问题并非不存在的时候对方会再次回到"what about"，开始下一轮循环，国内往往可以直接开喷，谁喷赢了听谁的（甚至干脆直接开喷不走理论阶段了），但这边会被管理员或其他因素制裁，所以只能原地转圈。 哪怕达成共识了，最后的共识反而会变成要求做出一个巨大的基本不可能一步到位的改动，结果就是所有人都拿不到自己想要的东西。

@_David_Bowie_If i can ask because last time i didnt get any answer about Type 10 fuel tanks. Are devs using documents where are those fuel tanks placed or is it game balance?

All of them. It can be used to aim through walls and other obstacles, it can be used to look around corners without exposing yourself, etc. And many many tanks didn't have anything like that. Also while we are at it, the same could be said about aircraft. Did you know about the nickname of Galland's wingman? It was "Fliegendes Zählwerk", which implies that he just followed him around and counted his kills. So the 3rd person view of an aircraft is just the imaginary wingman, flying around you. It could be forced to return to a repair zone, either with reduced power or by being towed, the magic repairs are just magic, which is indeed the most unrealistic part. Also you could just remove the repairs and consider a tank without a gun breech "killed". I have actually brought up this exact idea at least twice in this thread already. Right now all we have is the red arrow at the edge of the screen and the engine sounds of aircraft that give away their position, but crewmen pointing towards them, perhaps with an audio message, would be far better imo. Tanks' driving models are also painfully oversimplified. At air targets within a few hundred meters with nearly 0 accuracy...the ai tailgunners have been nerfed to absolute uselessness, because of whining fighter pilots who wanted bombers to be free kills. Well that is just the advantage of being high up. Which is marked on a large scale map, but even the faintest map knowledge allows anybody on the air and on the ground to quickly spawncamp the enemy. The zoom is the exact same and so are the camera controls. The distance of the camera from the object is only determined by the size of the vehicle. Because part of playing tanks is hiding, using cover and camouflage. If part of your crew can just auto-engage enemies, the player doesn't have to do any spotting himself. You then just have to wait for your AI to find the enemy for you. Do you not understand that tankers can see nearly nothing outside of their tank? And a classmate of my mum was run over by a tank in an exercise, because the crew didn't see him. Ulrich Rudel, the Stuka pilot, was credited with 500 tank kills. Michael Wittmann, who is considered the most successful tanker is credited with 138 tank kills and 132 kills of AT guns. The most successful anti-tank pilot is credited with more than 3x the kills as the most successful tanker. That is indeed no comparison.

You do realise that the toilet rolls were in context of the seemingly global toilet paper shortage during the pandemic and the parade skins are real and historic camouflages? Why does everything have to be super serious and gritty? Its a videogame after all. @K1NGM4S1V_4th_GUARDS_DIV

Was around the 23th(last week), but cant find it anymore on the DC

This could and very possibly be the best next step for the game besides economy changes! +1

yoo finally now I'm actually excited for the roadmap reveal

Hi From what you say, your friend send ticket to support during weekend. During weekends support got very limited activity. Please be patience, support read all tickets and answer them one by one. Please be aware that "bumping" ticket (so adding more answers before support answer you) will only slower the response time due to kicking your ticket to the end of the line. Cheers and sorry for waiting!

+1 for Japan. China has a lot of coastal boats to be in, some were similar, some were better. Meanwhile Japanese has none. Built by Japanese and practically used by Japanese, I think priority is on Japan coastal tree, which is severly lack of such vessels.

no one knows until there is one or the update is released

Imagine bragging about how much you spend on *this* game of all games and thinking that gives you the right to tell others how to play the game.

Well the report is discussing the integration of an American PD missile (the AIM-7F) into American aircraft (the Phantom), and it also states that the Americans prefer to the the AIM-7F in CW mode where possible. So I doubt this is a case of the British just being worse than the Americans at radar. It's worth noting that your document from the F-18 is almost 10 years newer than the reports I have, so radar technology would have moved on in that time (on both side of the pond). I also suspect that your report is over simplifying a bit. It states there is "no difference" in performance between CW and PD; but longer lock on range is a pretty widely reported benefit of PD illumination, so you would expect that to be mentioned.

magic!

God for bid if he sees the Chinese P-40.

Patrząc na ten esej samozadowolenia Ślimaka aż się ciśnie klasyk na usta. "Może mi to Pani jeszcze raz przeczytać?" Czy te pytania były wśród 80 tysięcy usuniętych komentarzy na steamie?

Then I demand 3 specific german tanks. Putting up with all those damn Gnomes isn't easy.

Wow, there is a chance someone might take a look at the problem: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8282-development-analysing-15-thousand-entries-of-your-feedback-from-the-economy-survey-en

The reason sweden has better Leopards because Sweden spent more money on them than the German government. And In game they are not bad at all. Yes I understand German mains are frustrated they have not recieved a new leopard. But that has nothing to do with the fact that Swedish top tier air cant compete with F16s,MiG 29s etc

Alright guy, name calling isn't necessary here and trust me you don't want to start what you won't finish. I'll use Vietnam for an example here. It a map I previously had banned. I can't stans it, I don't agree with how tedious is to play with half the map flooded, it's impossible to move point to point without exposing yourself (this leads to people going straight to spawns), and the mountains make it too easy for top tier helis. I don't have it banned anymore because the one map I hate the most (Campania) was added back in the game. People like you should be happy that I stuck through the first game on the map and I'm not going to stick around for the second game because I don't have fun on it. Why should I play a game if I don't have fun? I sure as hell ain't playing the game for you.

土鳖购买的是S-70C，属于民用型号 并没有安装火控系统

[email protected] "Direct hit!" artistic screenshot https://live.warthunder.com/post/1072119/en/

今天发的那个文章我看了，主要内容就一个：经济系统是为了赚钱而服务的。 导致降低说实话这个逻辑我是认的，增加玩家的时间成本从而促进其消费，这个听起来合理。但是，凡事都具有两面性，这种思维必然也会导致许多问题： 1.严重打击玩家爬线积极性。很大一部分玩家开线，付费的目的就是为了完整体验顶级载具，现如今顶级维修费过高（美顶为例，三辆M1街机维修费加起来2W4 KD过2都不能收支平衡），即使是付费玩家也已无力负担，这使得玩家的爬线意愿大幅降低。 2.游戏环境被严重破坏。高维修费的另一大问题，就是玩家面对"出击越多，亏得越多"的情况只能是用脚投票，变成单车和秒退。不仅顶级房如此，那些次顶级开线的也不愿意搭配银币载具，现在高级房已经不存在正常对抗的局，往往都是几分钟就结束，毫无游戏体验。 3.付费载具毫无保值性。金币载具的收益率随意就被大砍，直接损害了玩家利益，让玩家付费意愿大减。 4.脚本外挂横行。当银币获取重要性变得越来越高的情况下，更多的玩家自然会选择脚本/外挂这种方式，这只会对游戏和经济系统产生更大的破坏。 因此，面对现在已经威胁到游戏生命的这么多问题，我个人提出以下建议： 1.高等级载具必须保证KD为1左右情况下收支平衡。在KD为1的情况下平衡可以照顾到全体玩家，让总收益率为正，能够保证玩家有充足的意愿去玩顶级载具。对于战斗效率更高的载具，可以通过同时减少维修费和收益率的方式来降低其综合收益，而对于战斗效率更低的载具可以适当提高收益率来增加吸引力以及降低游戏成本。 2.单局任务中，二次出击 三次出击等多次出击适当给予经济奖励并减少维修费。鼓励玩家多次出击以保证战局流畅性，提升玩家游戏体验。 3.付费载具收益率不能随意更改。出现战斗效率更高的金币载具，更应该是通过改变BR，或者稍微提升维修费（以同等级银币载具的1/2为上限）来加以平衡，而不是大砍收益系数让其贬值。 4.加大脚本/外挂的封禁力度，别因为这些人也是付费玩家就纵容。 对于文章中说的，付费力不足的问题，我个人也有一点看法。20%的付费玩家很少么？不少了，但是很明显GAIJIN的营收思路很窄。 1.付费玩家应该有更多的付费点和非战斗付费优势，就拿这个已经说烂的维修费举例，完全可以在护身符中加入维修费降低和银币收益加成，让付费玩家有着更便利的游玩所有载具的优势，这一定会大大增加护身符的销量。 2.涂装，伪装网，贴花等项目完全可以作为主要项目之一来运营，就拿通行证来举例，与其给三个毫无特色的换皮载具，还不如给几个类似金豹2的伪装网/涂装等，同时，将改革后的护身符也作为主要奖励之一（可以自选），这势必会增加玩家参与通行证的热情。 3.将金币载具队列化，在礼包中加入备载，把每个季度的活动奖励加入付费金币化，将联队载具加入付费金币化，多出一些有特色的非换皮金币载具等，方法实在是太多了。 总结一下，GAIJIN现在的运营最大的问题，就是过度将收入重心放在了加速进度之上，这导致了游戏环境崩坏和玩家的举步维艰。现在想要改变这个局面，一是要保证玩家的基础收益为正，不能无限增加玩家的时间成本。二是开源，增加更多的合理的付费点，同时提升付费玩家的体验来促进消费。三是加大封禁外挂/脚本的力度，来保证所以正常玩家的游戏体验。三管齐下，这个游戏才有可能起死回生。 欢迎各位补充讨论。

Because the AIM-54 is next to useless in game, whereas the PL-12 would be very good

Larpers and grifters. Every movement gets filled with them. Sad reality

omg ....

他哪次不是这么干的 上次米格29直接跳过912硬加913然后吃了R73 这次歼8直接跳过F8IIM和J8H硬加J8F然后吃了半主动 下次合理估计要F15C直接跳过早期型硬加MSIP然后吃了120捏 寻思你又不想给6个霹雳8又不想给霹雳12那你倒是做歼8H啊 或者你不想给6个霹雳8那你倒是做歼10（2006）啊 或者你根本不想给雷达弹那你倒是做歼7G啊 这是什么 12.0六个红外弹的锁G二代机？ 明明有几个更好的选择 非要选最差的最惹人嫌的 我歼8B的霹雳8呢？

真他妈傻逼啊，挂了1473却不给雷达蛋，给自己r27er虚空加强时怎么不说还原显示？顶级房gaijin就他妈没想过好好做

一個遊戲裡性能跟MIG21bis差不多的玩意你讓他進12.0怎麼玩啊，就因為6發PL8和F14B、F16A打也太離譜了，更何況PL8抗干擾現在也是一塌糊塗，11.7以上是個飛機PL8打不中進格鬥就隨便被碾壓，更別說人家BVR先就對著你了，不如把更低權重的J7E什麼的發個PL8算了，好歹進格鬥不差

Yep the PLAAF is so advanced they needed to pull a jet from 2000 to face everyone else’s from the 70s and 80s xD

This is a good point, is seem that when extensions are not there the vehicle can only withstand waves of Offshore (work in rivers and lakes), once the extensions are installed it is heading to the the sea with high waves ( like Taiwan Strait) As this extension do not effect to its performance too much in game, I think it will be a good idea to add the extension as modification.