Yeah, it wouldnt be too bad if it could done with relative control enabled. the issue is, you pull your nose up and your radar stays looking at the same bit of sky. Which means if Im pulling my nose up to look at someone, I have to slew my radar up at the same rate. If relative control could just be toggled, then it would be a MASSIVE buff for the F3
1 Like
What’s bugged/unfinished on it?
1 Like
These bug reports are outstanding that I know of, but if nothing else, the missile can be a little buggy at times. They dont always track great and still once in a while, will just randomly explode even with a great PD lock.
Skyflash and Skyflash SuperTEMP maximum flight time too short
Skyflash unable to match real life test results
Skyflash should be able to hit target flying at 100 ft (33 m)
Skyflash seeker performance too poor against side aspect targets
1 Like
The issue with not hitting low alt targets affects all radar missiles not just the Skyflash. If it is fixed it will be for all missiles.
1 Like
I dont think its quite universal. R-27ER for example im not sure how good they are at low alt (IRL). I think the Skyflash was a little better at it than the Aim-7Ms were as well
No radar missiles are able to hit low flying targets in game, probably on purpose. If it has to fly 60 seconds to the target it won’t probably hit that, it barely has energy to hit targets at ~20km. Yeah it does get notched fairly easily and it can be annoying. Honestly none of this seems that great to move it up. I don’t think there’s need for it to go up to 11.7, it is already one of the best 11.3s. (ahh forgot you’re a sim player)
Even if it’s unrealistic, SARH missiles are programmed to not be reliable at low altitudes. Gaijin most likely did that for balancing reasons, considering even the earliest SARH missiles are modelled with a Inverse Monopulse Seekerhead despite not having one IRL
I wasnt saying that Skyflash buffs alone would result in 11.7, but that Skyflash buffs + Aim-9M + Some other buff such as radar control improvements, or something pertaining to a 2 seater. Then it “could” go to 11.7.
Though as an SB main, the F3 is already 11.7 in my eyes and due how EC brackets work, might as well have a 12.3 battle rating. 12s/12.3s is all it sees 95% of the time in SB. So 9Ms, AMRAAM, etc. I’ll take any buff I can get
Nope. It’s due to how radar missiles work currently. It doesn’t guide to the locked on target but instead at the centre of the box that surrounds the target. At low alt the box drops significantly. If the target is at say 30m above the ground then the radar box will go to 0 and the missile will not be a hitile unless you were trying to hit the ground
1 Like
It’s sim BR is really bad, I don’t even understand why it sits there, but in an RB vision it really doesn’t need buffs and go up, F-16s and Mig-29s are the ones that should go up.
2 Likes
I’m sick of how Gaijin handled the implementation of the Mikewinder. They added it to the F-16C (which didn’t need it, the Harrier II’s (which kind of did need it), but not the Tornadoes (which definitely needed it). For god’s sake they added the R-73 to the Su-25T two weeks after they added the Su-25BM. And they’re at 11.0/11.3 which is the same Br as the Tornado Marine and the normal ones.
3 Likes
Its there I reckon exclusively because without it there, Britain would have nothing for EC9 some rotations. This is why the Tornado ADV for Italy was briefly 11.3. They have the F-16 for EC9. If Britain ever gets anything else, Im expecting the Tornado F3 to drop back down to 11.3 pretty quickly.
RB i’ll admit, is tricky, I can see it going either way and on the rare times I find myself against a Mig-23 or F4. I slap them reasonably easily ( though I take that with a pinch of salt because they are usually a wallet warrior that doesnt really know what they are doing)
5 Likes
yes is the f18d instead of cf18b
The Tornado IDS dont need them , not did they equip them (what they need is their Chaff count among other things) But yeah, what aircraft got them and what aircraft didnt really doesnt make much sense
Taking the F.3 out in sim would be better if they buffed rewards for destroying the AI targets you’re supposed to so you can win the match.
Yeah, thats another big thing. Tornado F3 for me (in SB) has 4 major issues
- Its 11.7 (but should be 11.3) vs 12/12.3s all the time
- Its radar is designed for 2 people, not 1 and the controls are very limiting
- the HUD is placeholder and lacks most of the symbology, especially those pertaining to radar contacts (to show the TWS target on the HUD, you have arm a Aim-9)
- the Economy for pure A2As sucks. At least in other airframes, like the Gr7, FRS1, FGR2, etc, I can dump some bombs on something, in the F3 i’ve done long laps of the map and found nothing and was forced to RTB, a huge amount of time earning nothing and with how activity time works, even with an A2A kill, I may earn little because if I die shortly after, then I loose most of what I earnt with that kill (most kills come from a joust anyway)
(Not too mention other issues like the cockpit visibilty kinda sucks. Which is why Id be happy with the FA2)
5 Likes
It’s not that. It’s the fact that the Su-25BM, Su-25T, and Su-39 got the R-73. Let me repeat that the R-73. At the exact same Br as the Tornadoes. Am I tweaking here or does this seem like an incredible amount of bias by Gaijin here.
I know that the Sukhoi’s are subsonic but they have a much better countermeasure count, turn rate, and A/G weapons. I barely know what I’m saying at this time of the night but it’s ridiculous.
Yeah, that was a decision that should not have been done.
1 Like
I can understand the thought process behind why they gave those Su-25s R-73s, as the R-60s really suck ass at that BR, but they shouldn’t have gotten IRCCM missiles
1 Like
R-27Ts would have been plenty (not sure about the T or BM but Su-39 definetly could have had those)