no they were never, ever placed or designed to be placed on the airframe and furthermore the plane was never fitted in cockpit for countermeasure deployment. So just wrong on all levels.
This standard of “technical compatibility” is doing A LOT of lifting in this statement and gives many vehicles capabilities they never had IRL.
side edit, I am totally fine with A-historical changes for balance, but to use it as a cope in this instance is moronic.
they were designed to be placed on the airframe of the f-5a, there is zero reason to believe they would not be compatible with the f5c, which is an ‘upgrade’ to the f5a, if you can find a source that would explicitly state they they were not compatible with them then send it to gaijin im sure theyd appreciate it
I agree, but its gaijins standard not my own,
personally I think every vehicle should have a date explicitly where that model and its loadouts are based on, even if it would mean more copy paste vehicles
im not tbh, but if there is a consistent reason for it then i can live with it, and gaijin is generally as consistent as they can be (permitting a valid source exists
im not the one coping, thats the j15t players, im just explaining why I believe gaijin wont really be able to do much
ah no thanks
except for the fact that the plane never had the ability to use them, your question was one vehicle I gave you one now your coping about some BS gaijin standard that you yourself do not even agree with. I mean legendary.
this is why i hate this community, this mentality kills enjoyment and balance.
it should have more flares IDC about history, my whole point from this initially was that gaijin has buffed vehicles in the past that have 0 basis in reality, therefore makes sense to just forgo the whole muh realism for the sake of enjoyment of the players, imo.
yeah, but the one you picked wasnt really an example? like the f-5c was as compatible with the flare pods as the f-5a was
okay, i dont need to agree with it to understand why gaijin has it and to argue for it, they need to have a rule eventually,
what would you rather they have instead?
okay sure, there probably are some vehicles that have been ‘artifically’ buffed but i can say for sure that none of those had 0 basis in reality, such as the f-5c for example, its basis is that if the f-5a can have those cm pods so can the f-5c, pretty basic really,
also it was kinda hard to undestand your original point cause it was a laugh
dont get me wrong, i dont want DCS, i want a fun, balanced game, but we already have the BR system and we dont really need both
yak 141 IRST
f5C flares
tower’s basket in selected nations
Pesa and AESA radars function the same way
In addition to fixed electronic scanning radars having the same frontal RCS value as hybrid electronic radars (mechanical + electronic scanning).
probably fair, i dont know enough about it to comment much
literally just talked about that
notably a nerf not a buff
that just gaijin being lazy with a game mechanic not a buff to any single vehicle
you are a joke hahahaha
Any NATO tank with its basket deactivated loses horizontal turret movement, and the basket becomes a large target.
Russian, Chinese, and Israeli tanks have a much smaller target size.
The chances of losing the turret basket are minimal compared to NATO tanks.
Germany and the USA received baskets that were designed more than a year ago; France, England, and Japan received them in this patch.
Coincidentally, Russia has no operational AESA radars, with the exception of the Su-57.
bro can you just not read? i was asking for an example of an ahistorical buff to a single vehicle, because ahistorical nerfs happen all the time, basically whenever gaijin says loadouts are a balancing measure is a nerf
cool, have fun in your world of conspiracy, but the main differences wouldnt really affect warthunder that much, aesa is just more ‘diffused’ and harder to find when youre the one being targeted
I dont want to count the number of post/bug report about the mig29 suffering or the block10 overperforming like crazy and gaijin doing nothing about it except “forwarded for review”, and again, just a sample of many aircraft getting the same treatement
And im the one too limited to see the obvious btw
It’s already been said several times, you’re the one who’s in denial.
This is an example of your denial
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact: Russia does not possess AESA radar systems, the only exception being the SU-57.
Even the Su-35 uses PESA radar.
yet again the community does not see the issue with requiring “proof” of stuff based on a jet from 2025.
Let me say it real loud and clear for you so you can understand
GAIJIN THEMSELVES MAKE UP THE INITIAL STATS USING NO SOURCES THEN ASK YOU TO DISPROVE THEM AND DENY 90% OF SOURCES
im not in denial?
am i wrong? please enlighten me about the vast differences between aesa and pesa
it seemed like you were spouting russian bias was the reason gaijin hasnt implemented a difference between pesa and aesa, apologies if that wasnt the case
we know, but like for that kinda thing (a CM pod) a photo might work fine, also the reason gaijin deny 90% of sources is because 90% of sources are no better than gaijin making up numbers (making an educated guess) already so why would gaijin need them?
their rules on what is accepted and what isnt “change” daily based on whether they have predetermined they want an aircraft to be a certain way or not. Almost none of WT’s modeling is based in reality on how the vehicles actually are/were irl
Let me again, be clear to you. They deny 90% of ACTUAL, JUSTIFIED, REASONABLE sources. FULLY disregarding anything that would not be considered reasonable. 90% of whats REMAINING is denied.
gaijin’s made up stuff makes no sense, actually
for example: why does the j-10c and j-15t have the same radar
ws-10 mass???
etc
do you know what a primary source is? also i browse the cbr site every now and then and most of the time its,
-source is export restricted/classified
-player not providing what gaijin ask for (front page and contents and the info)
-or only providing 1 secondary source
I disagree in general, but even if they do change its at most like a few times a year, and most of the ‘changes’ are just people misinterpreting what the requirements are in the first place and then misconstruing that to other people
Yes… they deny these as well when it doesn’t suit their predetermined narrative… “We think this is a clear marketing lie”
Please explain to me how you mental gymnastic this in your head to be honest?
i hope that guy was fired tbh
but also to be fair, wasnt it just a line from the marketing website that was being presented as a source that time?
Wait until you find out they’ve used that same reasoning dozens of times.
im just coping, and hoping that gaijin does actually have some internal consistency and are just really opaque about it tbh (which to be fair, isnt always untrue)
i dont know about dozens, multiple times maybe, but idk if there even have been enough cases where “marketing lies” could be the reason for denial for that to have happened dozens of times
