The Tornado IDS is fine for CAS now that it has LJDAM’s, not that I play ground much anymore, between how horrid the balancing is, and how trash gaijin treats german ground patch after patch. But thats getting off topic at this point.
Maps are arguably already too small for top tier, and there aren’t many good ones either. Afghanistan is leagues beyond everything else available for fox 3 combat, Vietnam and Spain are somewhat good, but rare to see, Rocky Canyon is decent but has issues with map flow, Sinai is a trash map abused by ppl who cant be bothered to learn BVR combat (it is much better at lower BR’s tho, such as around 11.0-12.0 range imo), and Denmark is a unique map (objective/locale-wise) that is dragged down by MP abuse, trash rewards, out of period objectives, and landmass compression.
Air is long overdue for a map overhaul/rework, particularly when it comes to sim. Last new map was added a bit over 2 years ago…
Considering how the AN/AXX-1 TCS (F-14B) / ASX-1 TISEO (Kurnass 2000 (Still waiting for the F-4E to get it)) / NAVFLIR / DMT (AV-8BNA &(-B+) / Harrier GR.7) / AAR-45 LANA (A-7E &-7K, even though it’s actually a Navigation pod, and can only be slewed by said A2G radar tracks) have been implemented, don’t expect much in terms of added functionality or interactivity beyond an integrated targeting pod.
I play other nations than Germany, US/RU/CN are all also top tier. I dont really do convoy strikes with REDFOR seeing as they dont have anything that can efficiently and safely do those kinds of runs that I like using. Typhoon might be able to if it gets LGB’s, but its gonna take a while guiding each one in one at a time, probs not worth the time/effort. Im close to the Su-34 tho, should be able to effeciently kill convoys with that.
I guess the Typhoon will still manage to run 6 LGB’s + 6 AAM’s tho, so a bit more multirole on that end. Any idea what kind of dumb bomb load they can run?
Don’t worry (too much) I’m sure there will be similar issues with the F/A-18’s assorted pods ( availability pending implemented variant(s) & specific configuration / client) as well;
NITEHAWK ( AN/AAS-38 )
ATFLIR ( AN/ASQ-228 )
LITENING ( AN/AAQ-28(V)3 )
So it likely won’t be entirely alone this patch. and with new airframes there is always the possibility for the implementation to be revised with the upcoming update.
Sources dont matter, we bug reported everything about the AN/AXX-1 TCS for the F-14B the moment the dev server opened, from every single function it has, its zoom, its slew angles, what weapons it can and cant be used to fire, even its exact scan pattern, they modelled none of it. Expect the same for PIRATE.
Yeah the F-14 TISEO system is beyond broken and even the Platan system on the Su-34 does Track properly or just loses its ability to follow the radar lock.
But surprisingly the LANTIRN pod on the F-15E will track your radar target without fail, in some experiences if you are guiding a GBU to a target and track a target on your radar the TGP will override your target point and start tracking the radar target and completely mess up your bomb guidance. I’m not sure if the F-15E is meant to be able to have this or not as I can’t see anything about TISEO in the X-Ray information on it.
Simply put unless the devs work hard on improving the already existing and similar systems in-game then I have no faith in a working and useful PIRATE system
I’m hoping they’ll model it closer to a radar. It should have the same utility and similar scan limits. It shouldn’t be like the one on the Mig-29 or 23 etc
The basic operating principle is already present on the ADAD system found on the Stormer, but its a 20 year older system and has less comptational aide which is the limiting factor on PIRATE.
It’s as simple as; if the detecting element is monolithic (and doesn’t utilize pseudo-imaging techniques) or some form of array of independent detecting elements.
A monolithic detector cannot produce a useful output in an identification sense, but doesn’t need (as) complex electronics to find and track targets, since it can reuse methods and techniques used for the radar.
In game those that do have a video output get access to an extra camera mode(used for navigation, I guess), instead of also having access to independent IR/EO based search & track functionality as found on the US F-8E / MiG-23MLD.
Otherwise aircraft like the F-14 & F-8E, F-4 etc. could substitute the regular Radar Based Search & Track phase of a radar missile engagement for the IRST, with the radar based systems only being used for transmitting missile guidance commands, it should also make the Radar ignore both chaff, flares and notching (since simultaneous use of both methods also allow sum and difference feedback loops to generate corrections to the antenna train angle and so retain angular precision).
You’re saying that IR systems without imaging capabilities are given as a IRST such as on the MiG-23 or MiG-29 whereas electro-optical-esque systems with the ability to display an image are treated like guidance pods functionality.
There is an arbitrary distinction made in game that causes them to lose access to the “Search and Track” functionality that these systems should retain, which they erroneously lose with the criteria seeming to be if a video output is provided (For VID purposes), and as such can no longer be used as an independent alternate sensor, in place of being slaved to the Radar and so effectively makes them entirely redundant and not provide any actual benefit to having the system slaved to the radar, outside of some limited capacity for VID.
Thus the upcoming implementation of the PIRATE sensor for the Eurofighter will likely not break with the established precedent of said familiy systems being dysfunctional considering what is known of the performance characteristics and capabilities.
And based on bug reports that yet remain “to be actioned” for similar systems that it is unlikely that this would change, and that reducing expectations that the system would be at all useful when implemented is probably for the best considering said precedent.
@MiG_23M I’ll reply here to save derailing the Flanker thread any more. Aside from the bypass ratio what is your reasoning for believing it cannot supercruise? It’s kind of hard to follow the discussion in the Flanker thread because of the amount of flanker related posts between each Eurofighter post, and I can’t find all your posts through your profile as it’s private.
The EJ200 uses a bypass ratio of 0.4, while the F119 and M88 use 0.3, but beyond that they seem pretty similar. Contrary to what you claim the EJ200 actually has a slightly lower turbine inlet temperature than the F119 or M88, and the pressure ratio is nearly the same for all three:
Engine
Bypass ratio
Turbine Inlet Temperature (K)
Pressure Ratio
EJ200
0.4
1,800
26:1
M88
0.3
1,850
24.5:1
F119
0.3
1,922
26:1
And the F119 is also a much larger engine than the EJ200. The EJ200 is better in terms of thrust to weight ratio.
