So they could always change the placeholder stats for the -4D at some point, sure. And yes, I like to think the initial inclusion on Dev of the F-102 carrying Super Falcons it never carried for real and would have performed poorly on that platform is because the AIM-4D (and AIM-26B) missile models aren’t ready yet.
I’m conflicted between explanations, considering they showed it off in the trailer I think they may have thought super falcons were the way to go. If they knew the main armament wasn’t ready… why not just wait to show it until the stuff is ready?
Well said.
The G-load issue is currently a known bug (for the AIM-4F only, -4G is correct): game stats say 15, sources (and the stat card!) both say 27 (so maybe only half the G-pull). Not sure it has a huge game impact, for a radar missile of that generation 15G is normally more than enough.
Chaff-filtering is unique to the -4F, and because it used a radar-based method (basically if the pilot thought there’d BE chaff he could change the radar point of aim to the front edge of any chaff cloud, which could lead to a miss if you were wrong too), I can see why implementing it as just “ECCM” wouldn’t really be that accurate, though.
Those are both 106-only problems however. For this thread, the 102 never carried the -4F so both of those points are moot. The -4A would be inarguably below the AIM-7C in nearly all aspects of performance; the correct answer here is probably the AIM-26B Falcon as the 102’s SARH option (which doesn’t appear to be modelled terribly and is basically a -7C equivalent or a little better).
You’re right too about the limited-but-still-there all aspect capability on the -4G (and -4D), but given their other parameters, without a prox I can’t see that being effective very often anyway so any gameplay impact there is probably fairly low.
I even think the -26B has room to grow further in utility once ECM is brought in someday and it has its home-on-jam capability added (allowing it to launch SARH and then effectively go pitbull IF the target is jamming).
Also a primary-source quotation from: https://ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html:
“BTW the 102 was a very accurate rocket platform. During the Cuban Crisis we left our nukes at home and were deployed to Homestead AFB, FL. Some one at ADC thought we should reinstitute the rockets. We still had the three double-loaded tubes in each outer missile bay door. Then ‘they’ thought we better test them. There were no practice 2.75” RX available right then. Okay, said HHQ; use live ones. The USN had an old WW2 DD aground on Marquesas Key 30 nm west of Key West they used for a practice target. So, use that target - Oh goody! Off we went, twenty 102s, each with twelve RX, twice. Someone thought once wasn’t enough. We did not protest. Since the ship was still substantially there, only the small practice bombs having been used on it, it was hard to miss. Since each live RX was equal to a 75 mm shell, that poor old DD was flattened by the time we were through firing 480 HE RX at it. Oh, yeah, since the RX selector allowed us to select 6, 12 or 24 - we selected 6 so we only fired 3 RX each time thus getting 4 passes a sortie. Never got any feed back from the USN so I guess they didn’t care.” - LtCol Walter “BJ” E. Bjorneby, USAF, 1500 hours in the 102
Confirms both when the 102 was fitted for AIM-26, it could and did still carry half the rockets (12). When it had 24 in the original config, it fired in groups of six, with the half-rocket load it could fire groups of 3.
2 Likes
Gentlemen, I am VERY pleased to present these clips to you, @majorlier meshed together the FM file for the AIM-4D with the model from the RB28 (which appears to just be an american AIM-4D model) and allowed me to catch these clips of what the AIM-4D might look like if it is added to the 102 this patch. I myself am EXTREMELY pleased to see the increase in low speed acceleration and reach, and am very excited to hear what you all have to say! (stats are very much subject to change though in the case that the missile is unfinished)
2 Likes
The fm file still has a bit too much drag but it should outspeed r60mk in the first 2000 meters and aim9d in the first 2800 meters, and it shows.
1 Like
reading the FM file… is the thrust correct? I’m not sure what units they use
SMC says 4220 lbs of thrust at sea level and zero speed, which converts to 1914.16 kg.f or 18771,5 Newtons of force.
FM file indicates 19449,4 so it’s probably Newtons, and while it looks a bit more than it should (3,5 %), i’d say it’s probably not too far off because rocket engines produce more thrust with speed and altitude.
1 Like
Looks fantastic! Would the 4C and 4A have similar handling/thrust characteristics?
Does the Gun Work yet? Last time I was on the dev server it was just visual
the visual gun models are gone, no function/modification/weapon yet, only thing remaining is the triple ejector rack that clips into the fuel tank rack when you attach them. doesn’t mean they aren’t adding the guns, they probably just haven’t set them up still yet.
they use the same body and motor, so it’s likely
1 Like
Good, I’d really enjoy a SARH missile that flies more like that rather than a Super Falcon
It is with great sadness that I pass along the message that the F-102s chances of receiving better falcons this patch seem to have diminished substantially. IF it remains that way, in my opinion this will be an an extremely poor choice on the devs part as this leaves the F-102 with weapons it was both never compatible with and that were never designed to work with it, thus we have a fundamentally flawed aircraft that people will not really be able to enjoy.
1 Like
there’s almost no point in playing a 9.0 F-102 with 4F/G instead of 4A/D if you already own the much faster F-106 with 4F/G and Vulcan at 9.3
Tbh there is no reason to play the F-102 due to the 106’s Vulcan to begin with, unless the 102 gets some non-falcon offensive options that work.
The 106 is still at the end of the day a gunfighter and a really good one at that, due to the issue of plane guidance hitboxes just being weird and falcons suffering from being hit to kill.
2x SUU-11 pods were seen on the airframe in the 2nd dev server
They will likely be made functional by the time it goes live
Removal of AIM-4F/-G is denied. I wonder where they got the source.
Ask them to list their source, thats actual BS
1 Like
The snail works in mysterious ways (making things up). My guess is that they just assume they are compatible cause they are of the same missile family, but who knows.
Gaijin should need to do that for every denied bug report to prove it wrong in some way IMO.
Spoiler
On a side note the whole “technical compatibility” thing they do is quite harmful to the game, especially since they aren’t consistent with it.
1 Like