I wonder, would it be possible to get an Update from the update on some issues if there are enough (news)?
If there is any major new news to share, we would report it here (+ the other Typhoon topics).
5 Likes
@Gunjob This might be of some help in the internal BOL flare report, pretty sure these are pics of BOL flares in IRST and NVG, launched by an F-14:
6 Likes
Anything to confirm that? Would be nice to have some more pictures via IR sensors.
1 Like
Unfortunately dont have a specific thing outlining if this is truly BOL in use, but it is an F-14 and it doesnt look like a normal flare. Pic is from this:
I dont know of any other CM that F-14 used that would look like that in IRST, so if gaijin is willing to take it for a BOL report, you have a short video of a few pops of it in IRST, not just a pic.
1 Like
Definity resembles a BOL release. I’ll see if I can sneak it in cheers.
10 Likes
Glad to be of help!
US mains complaining about the Gripen being too strong
Why s this flagged?
Profanities can’t be used, even with their disguised form.
Wait, so we cant say ‘beep’?
What if we’re talking about cockpit sounds?
“That Beeping RWR/MAWS can drive you nuts in top tier”
😜
4 Likes
yeah see when it goes “beep beep pull up” its swearing at me and i love that
3 Likes
He said it twice! Children read this forum you utter beep.
1 Like
Alright, you can cut it.
1 Like
Okay, coming back to thread topic.
What information would be useful for the BOL report? -While there are plenty of photos (visual spectrum) there are less of countermeasures as seen in the IR/UV spectrum - certainly publicly available anyway.
And thats why we like it )))))
I don’t think much is needed.
I think it’s pretty clear it’s a ahistorical/fake change purely for the purposes of nerfing BOL for balancing reasons. More than sufficient data/evidence was submitted a year ago to get it fixed, both the flares and the chaff.
Aircraft equipped with BOL would have a notable CM advantage which is greatly mitigated by the poor performance currently. Whilst aircraft like the Gripen and Typhoon manage fine for the moment, everything else suffers greatly, but few care about the other aircraft performance and so it is ignored.
This is pretty clear when you consider aircraft like the Harrier Gr7 had 700 CMs for 15 months without issue, but then the Gripen started to do well, and the F-16/Mig-29/Su-27 were no longer meta and thus the Gripen needed nerfs. Reducing the size of BOL by 75% for all aircraft was their chosen method.
The only hope for BOL these days is for BOL to be truly modeled correctly and the only hope for that is a need for it to be modeled correctly, like for the F-15 which is currently missing BOL to defend against ASRAAM and IRIS-T. Until then, all others will just have to suffer the fake BOL nerfs
1 Like
Regarding the radar scanning speed.
I suspect that the low scanning speed may be due to the ultra-fast vertical scanning feature. If your radar is capable of vertically deviating at 333 degrees per second and updating contacts almost instantly even outside the current scanning line, then you don’t need high horizontal speed. With a scanning speed of 70 degrees per second, it will pass even the widest bar in 2 seconds, which means that all contacts will be updated very often and, as I already said, you don’t need high beam movement speed in the horizontal plane. I think this system can be simulated by adding a second radar beam, which will move synchronously with the scanning beam, but will not detect new targets, but will only update known ones. Oh, and of course the beam should be 120 degrees high to cover the entire vertical zone available to the radar.
1 Like
they could’ve balanced this by reducing the amount of rails you can mount.
the current implementation juts screws everyone over
it might be balanced for the jets that carry 4 rails but aircraft that carry less (or loadouts that result in less carriage like bombs and such) just mean you’re completely screwed, even more so than aircraft without BOL rails
1 Like