Last I checked, pre-orders stays up until the update is out. Then the bonuses are no more.
alr as the preorder skin makes that hilariously bad canada logo less visible. its just so awful looking bro i dont know what they were thinking. the orange also looks really pleasant
It’s a weird, lesser-known livery that has the low-visibility version of everything else, yet a bright tail flag.
Not sure why they didn’t go full low visibility, as this version did use that livery, if my TT image is correct.
1 Like
good lord that looks so much better than the stock one in game
ya, the bright flag as the base is just wrong.
Thankfully, we should be getting better skins from the grind, GE, and market ones. As the base and pre-order ones aren’t the best.
I really wish they’d give it the full low-vis look, the full colour flag looks so out of place on the default skin. I had to search for a while just to find an image of the livery they referenced to figure out if it was real or an error.
Edit:
I just noticed something looking at the skin again. Is there a real world reason why it would depict both 414sqn and 416sqn?
1 Like
I didn’t know it was real livery until someone pinged me with an image of it.
Huh, that is likely wrong, I’ve been meaning to open a CF-188 thread in the Dev section and share it with the Canadian discord server as I know a few of them are better with air info them me(no matter what my topics say), and others have easier access to the Dev server than I do.
Edit, made it: CF-188A on the dev server
1 Like
Good point: British gets new jet
Bad point: My MiG-21 Bison is now doomed thanks to new CF-188A spam.
1 Like
Just say the R word and don’t tip-toe around it. Get real.
Recession
1 Like
$110cad for a premium plane now
more expensive than a brand new triple a title :p
Doing this objectively is impossible.
1 Like
Imagine if Gaijin based BRs on vehicle specs.
Such an incredibly stupid idea!
Do tell me how is it possible while being perfectly objective ?
Perfectly objective BR balancing could be possible, but it would require way too much time and effort. I don’t think people are asking for that.
Not having straight upgrades of vehicles at the same BR as the weaker variant and not reducing vehicle BRs purely based on player statistics (just because a vehicle is hard to use doesn’t automatically mean the vehicle is bad) would be a good start though.
But as with most balance issues, BR decompression is required to make better balancing possible.
1 Like
It’s effectively impossible until you find a way how to objectively weigh all the different variables that a vehicle has.
You would need to know how big of a difference, BR wise, is between let’s say, gen1 and gen2 thermals.
Or 7.1s vs 5s reload.
Or DM53 vs DM43.
…
This is why global stats are better to look at as they put theory into practice. They can even gauge how much better minor nation players are than major ones, thanks to all copy paste vehicles.
That’s necessary to happen in a system without more than enough BR steps. Stats based balancing has little to do with that.
Hard to use doesn’t have an objective definition, as different people struggle with different things.
Agreed.
Looking forward to the Commonwealth having an actual home.
1 Like
No gun and worse, earlier Falcons than the 106 has. Not sure what BR that would put it at (see also F-101 and F-102).
CF-100 would be viable in game though, maybe around a 7.0 (.50 cal and FFAR rockets).
When I was gathering BR ideas, they ended up at 9.7 (MK 1) and 10.0 (MK 2), respectively. They might be able to come down in BR due to the F-106 for “reference”. This is in part do to the slightly better loadout than the (C)F-101, with its fewer missiles.
For comparison:
CF-101 (huh the F-101B can take more, I thought the CF-101 was a C&P of the F-101B)
Ordnance:
Rockets: 2 x AIR-2A Genie nuclear rockets with 1.5 Kt warhead
Missiles: 2 x AIM-4D Falcon AAMs
VS
CF-105:
Ordnance:
Rockets: 2 x AIR-2A Genie nuclear rockets
Missiles:
8 x AIM-4 Falcon AAMs
3 x AIM-7 Sparrow II D AAMs
4 x Canadair Velvet Glove AAMs
Depends on which variant, as there are more than a few, you’re listing the Mk 4. Although 7.0 for the Mk 4 A or B is a little low, maybe the Mk 3 A, but 7.3 at the lowest is more likely, for what I recall when comparing specs for the airtree.
For the possible CF-100s
CF-100Mk 3A/B - 8x .50 cal
CF-100 Mk 4A/B - 8x .50 cal and 2x FFAR
CF-100Mk 5 - 2x FFAR
CF-100Mk 5M - 4x AIM-7 Sparrow II and 2x FFAR
Note the difference between the A and B variants is the engine, which affects top speed and other things. That gives us 6 Canadian CF-100s and the Belgian CF-100, giving us a total of 7 CF-100s that can come to WT. Is it overkill? probably. Will all of them come? probably not.
So in those cases you’re counting on the Sparrow II, best described as an “idea for a Fox 1,” that could never be gotten to work even in early trials, and/or Genie nukes to make viable aircraft weapons loadouts. (The Velvet Glove, a Canadian Korea-era SARH research program, would be possibly equivalent to the earliest SARH Falcon GAR-1s in game, so that’s no improvement over the earliest Falcons, really.) F-102 has the same problems, but yeah. 1950s jets were just weird sometimes. I mean I’d like to see the Boulton Paul Defiant in game too, but I’m not sure anyone, including me, would have any fun playing it. Cheers.