Why this logic not working for german PIRATE?
2 Likes
Ok, so why not putting PIRATE on the +EF then?
+EF is PIRATE ready.
1 Like
As we have 3 versions of the Eurofighter in game and the lack of PIRATE is one of the key distinguishing features between the German version and Italian / British. Where its possible to avoid fully identical aircraft when there are multiple variants, and at least have some differences that reflect their real world counterparts, this is always aimed for.
As we have 3 versions, the lack of IRST is the main key difference in the German version just as it is in reality between the operators.
1 Like
Dear Smin,
do you have news about the flight model of all EF2000?
Better climbrate at low altitude, better instantaneous turn rate and substain turn rate?
I see some Reports about that topic, too.
Upgraded to FGR.4 and has IRST
Tail letter BV
Oh, my. This one too
Come on, it’s not even a combat one, it’s a training Typhoon T1
No way! 924 ALSO F.2 I’m too lazy to even look for a photo of 924 after upgrading to FGR.4
Just kidding! It’s not true.
And if we look in the game we see what?
4 Likes
Aaaah man, thx a lot. You’re so kind.
Not kind enough to give +EF it’s IRIS-T, but kind enough to take PIRATE, eh?
Cmon…
1 Like
The only report currently left open (I may be missing some) is instant turn.
1 Like
IRIS-T is a more advanced missile than anything currently in game and would not come without its counterparts.
You want to say that when introducing weapons and equipment you are supposedly guided by some rules. But there are no rules. This is obvious. You can break any rule at any time and come up with some ridiculous explanation for it.
Germany has benefited and is benefiting from the same rules as everyone else. Going back a very long time over several vehicles. No nation is an exception to that.
There is no rule being broken, weapons and systems are balancing choices from the devs, they chose to not implement IRST. Getting smin to say the same thing over and over as it flies further and further above your head won’t do anything about the devs choices.
3 Likes
you guys are turning in circles.
Smin pretty much answered everything here multiple times already
Even today it was multiple times.
No matter how how much guys beg or cope the stand on the matter wont change.
To begin with he is only a messanger, he has no actual decision powers.
8 Likes
I think the issue here is that a lot of the sources used for climb rate have been… dismissed by the devs in a rather meme-able way. So its getting fresh sources that confirm climb rate in specific regimes
2 Likes
How about the “don’t introduce vehicles that didn’t exist in reality unless it necessary” rule? Then take out the Panther 2 and Tiger 2 105, add the Ostwind 2 and sell packs with it?
What is even the big deal about IRST. Outside of simulator it’s pretty much useless.
And with how many planes are flying around on a full sim server, there as well at some point.
1 Like
Evidence the developers have shows Ostwind 2 was a fully constructive prototype, which meets the games criteria. Nonetheless, this now just seems to be an off topic rant going off on a tangent. So lets please remain on track.
What happened to the sustained turn rate report?
2 Likes
Sure, but here’s the problem.
First we had the F4 ICE fiasco and now, it remains to be seen what will come of the +EF, because it’s on the RedAir (still and for some reason) and fights UK/ITA (PIRATEed) Eurofighters.
I mean, GER TT already has abysmal WR…something like 4.9% vs 75% for the US at BR13 eg. so where’s balance there?
I’m playing SB. :D
1 Like
Or how about the rule “don’t give a vehicle weapons it didn’t actually use”? For example, according to this rule, don’t give a German P-47 bombs. And then pretend that such a rule didn’t exist.
Whole lotta cope