Here’s the whole thing without being truthful about the last sentence on the hull devblog.
5 Likes
Will Gaijin put down his arrogant head and modify and correct American equipment?
1 Like
True but Gaijin does fantasy builds all the time in it’s models. F15’s are a prime example, they have about half their IRL performance. They could be more reasonable. I was half convinced on a longshot Gaijin were going to buff the Abrams armor after nerfing it’s turret ring by making the entire basket a turret ring.
Out in fantasy land those Abrams frontal fuel tanks would be perfect subjects for spaced armor in a reverse pike nose configuration. It’s begging for it. What’s to bet that hasn’t already been done if a gaming nerd thinks it makes sense just by looking at those voids.
Just to be clear, that’s not what I’m asking for I just think it’s a good example of how good it could be as opposed to 350mm KE protection off of a 700mm cavity + the fuel tanks voids. Engineers could probably make it 1.5 meters of kinetic protection if they wanted to, given the available space.
1 Like
They could do the 5 hulls from the school as an event but make it rare like the E100 or Maus. That would make sense.
1 Like
They addressed this already, and the TLDR of it is that the X-ray view is not actually correct, as it displays the visual model and not the damage model. They even showed an image of the actual damage model and it was only 2 flat circles/ ring at the bottom and top of the turret basket respectively.
It still effectively results in the same outcome, though.
2 Likes
not really, It seems pretty close to what it was before TBH.
That’s what I was saying, though? That the turret basket still gets hit regardless?
2 Likes
F-15s have all of their IRL performance, I know this cause I was the one that bug reported them to get that performance.
Abrams turret ring has never changed since its introduction, that’s part of the problem.
Abrams fuel tanks are placed there specifically because it improves crew survivability and it’s a convenient place for them.
No. F15’s go mach 2.9 at sea level. In game they break apart at half that speed at between 3-4000 meters.
One of the Aardvark models was able to go mach 3.2. This game is grossly inaccurate.
To me that’s an open admission to the corruption in this game and justifies my cancelled subscription.
@SoundWave777
I see you’re calling the United States Air Force liars.
Sorry but mach 2.5 at higher altitude is the maximum F-15s go.
Same for the Varks.
1 Like
That’s why their airframes are rated to mach 2.9?
No. F-15’s have a service top speed of Mach 2.5 at altitude. Iirc they can and they did surpass that a few times. You would be right if you said that the F-15’s top speed is incorrect. Top speed of the A/C is Mach 2.4 although they are Mach 2.5 rated too. The F-15E which is Mach 2.5 rated in the game can only reach Mach 2.3 last time I tested.
Of course they have shit radars compared to their irl performance and no BOL pods and some other small issues but, pretty much, every plane has these
After all, many people believe that game development teams strictly follow real-life vehicles to create vehicles that appear in games
But after playing, they won’t think like that anymore
mach 3? in an ardvark? HELL NO, the SR-71 went Mach 3 and its to date the fastest known aircraft (with jet engines) ever. The ardvark would not be able to handle Mach 3 without experiencing some unscheduled disassembly (midair)
tbf its officially mach 2.5+ and recently about EX someone from Boeing said 2.9 before that was quickly retracted back to the 2.5+
1 Like
Yea. Reality seems nice when you play a Russian game :))) lmao
TO me if they have the thrust to weight values and the drag values correct how can they make the model wrong regardless of operational security statements. Everytime Alex Hollings from AirPower says some crazy stats I expect it to be public information.
100%, it’s an operational security measure. But if they give you the thrust to weight and you figure out drag how can you get it wrong.