Devs are always making continuous improvements to the game code. Reasonably recently the new physics for missiles comes to mind. And the move to more volumetric armour. Naturally I’m not saying any of these are without issue. But they are steps towards realism.
That i understand and im greatefull about. I just wonderad about overall code overhaul. Replacing old lines of things as simple as code that operates nation changes. While im not a progremmer myself i had a oppoturnity to talk with a few and they said that when multiple things start braking one after another, with no apparent reason such as a mistake in the code ect, it is a time for a overhaul. I also do not know how it works within Gaijin, while the gameplay changes are told to us, changes to code that do not affect typical player are left out, so i do not have a full picture.
Well, there is nothing more to talk about. I asked a question and i got an answear. Im thankfull that you provided me it. Thanks once again and hope you have a good day/night.
I realy made an essay, huh?
2 Likes
Sorry to keep nagging, but is the issue with missile phasing on the dev radar and acknowledged? I remember you mentioning you personally had seen a few reports, but it seems like it’s been like this for quite a while now without improvement.
Yes, it is being actively worked on by the Devs.
2 Likes
- F-4J Phantom II, F-4S Phantom II — RWR type changed from AN-APR-25 to AN/ALR-45(V).
@Gunjob Is there a reason the F-4J(OKE) isn’t also updated? Or has GJN just forgotten about the UK tree as per normal?
- AH-64 (all nations), AH Mk.1, YAH-64 — scope magnification changed from 126x to 63.5x.
You have to laugh. Less than a week after they uptier all these helicopters to 11.7 they are halving their maximum scope magnification.
Meanwhile the Ka-52 still has a completely fictional FLIR magnification that they will never correct because it will nerf their pride and joy
Do you have a source it shared the same RWR (dont appear to have something in my collection)? I could try to make the argument that it should match the USN F-4J but if anyone has something to hand to confirm it I can report the issue.
1 Like
I might be completely wrong about this but werent the F4J(UK) bought directly from the USN without modifications due to the gap in air defence and need to reinforce the falklands?
So surely there wouldnt have been any modifications to it
There were some modifications to the F-4J(UK) in RAF service. Question would be if they we already upgraded to the ALR-45 before purchase. Sadly I only have a radar/weapons manual for the F-4J(UK) which doesn’t reference the RWR at all.
1 Like
They were ex-navy F-4Js, but the UK paid to have them brought up to “almost” F-4S spec. The only difference was that they did not want to use the HMD system because that would include having to buy/lease US Navy helmets, and that they didn’t want the leading edge slats to be fitted because they reduce top speed and decrease fuel efficiency for long distance intercepts - a primary concern for the UK. Any source I’ve read on it suggests that all other electronics/avionics were upgraded to the same specifications as the F-4S. The jets then went further modification upon arrival in the UK so that they could be equipped with Skyflash. The only reason we don’t get 7Fs like everyone else is because the UK never purchased Sparrows - the jet was perfectly capable of using them. Similarly to how it never actually used 9Gs, it was just capable of using them so GJN has given them as a balancing decision.
How the same jet with four 9Gs and four Skyflash is deemed to be equal to one with two/four 9Hs and six/four 7Fs is something that keeps me up late at night.
3 Likes
I can try messaging the British Phantom Group - they’ve got a few mechanics and pilots who worked on/used the F-4J(UK). I wouldn’t hold my breath though, most of the documents they have are to with maintenance procedures etc.
It just seems strange for them to give the F-4J this RWR and not the F-4J(UK) though. I’d understand it a bit more if it were just the F-4S and they didn’t have proof the J(UK)s actually have that improvement installed. But how exactly are they claiming the F-4J(UK)s had inferior RWR to the F-4Js the Americans used? It just doesn’t make sense to me. I seriously doubt GJN has any proof the UK bought F-4Js that were downgraded.
Anything interesting being added to current vehicles in game?
SAP and AP bombs being added to several WWII era aircraft
As far as I can tell the F-4J(UK) used the AN/ALR-66 Radar Warning Receiver. But I’ve only got one secondary source for that.
2 Likes
Secondary source works for me, its atleast worth a try. Fire it my way.
5 Likes
Not sure if this is the right place for it, but:
What’s up with the British tech tree’s ADATS tank destroyer, being the Canadian one anyway?
The ADATS turret system was mounted successfully onto a Warrior Chassis. Surely this would have been a far more suitable solution for the UK given it’s a home-brew chassis and trialed by the UK, rather than an allied nation?
@Gunjob Any ideas on why that might be, or if we’re likely to see that corrected/changed in the future to the domestic version?
4 Likes
Wasnt that just a mock up though?
If not then it should definitely be in place of the adats, maybe gaijin can give us some other funtional high teir SPAAs that arent broken as anything (looking at you Stormer)
It’s possible that Gaijin’s potential reason for add Canada in British TT in the future.
Just let me hopium…
3 Likes
So far as i’ve found: it was a fully functional ADATS assembly placed on a modified (slimmer, lower profile) Warrior chassis as a part of British Army Equipment Exhibition 1988 by GKN.
They removed one set of road wheels to make it shorter, it had radar absorbant armor applied and was dubbed Reconaissance warrior
1 Like
Best guess. its identical to the US one in the US TT (as far as I am aware). easy C&P
Nah, completely different vehicle.
USA gets Bradley ADATs which mounts it on an M3 Bradley hull, with an autocannon as well.
GBR gets an M113 with no autocannon, from Canada
1 Like