welp, theyre real at least
smd posted some documents here about upgrading F-15C closer to F-15EX level
Yess. Give 'em to me. Mockup or not. The KH-38MT is only a mockup
The EPAWS and FbW are enough to make the F-15C almost like an EX.
These racks aren’t in use, while the dual racks of the r-77 actually are, albeit only on su-35s
and? if anything there is more evidence that these racks are functional for f15C than the dual r77 racks are on flankers
7 Likes
The EX almost like the C ??
well, looks like at some point they will
1 Like
The dual racks that don’t even fit on the Su-27SMs are in-game. AMBER is far more real than that, but hey “double standards” and all that.
7 Likes
Could we get the F-15N into the game?
Would be cool. F-15 and Phoenix lol
No, F-16AJ level fake
Exactly. Give it to me
Trust me when I tell you, you don’t want Phoenixes.
Why? It’s a new aircraft. If i don’t like it, I won’t use it.
AGM-65D/F/G IR Maverick incorrect FoV:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c0wIZ1uBCdhO
F-15E: Thermal camera on the AGM-65D isn’t usable:
(@Gunjob @InterFleet This one is from 5 months ago! Still not forwarded!)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/C7N6vj50dpLn
Sorry for stealing your finding :)
3 Likes
Ah nice! I was going to look for more sources tonight, but seems you saved me some time. Thank you.
Also just finished a report for the Maverick rocket engine: Community Bug Reporting System
Tldr: total impulse / dV should be 15% higher
5 Likes
what are they chances they are going to use that to nerf the booster force without increasing duration or buffing the sustainer
Did they nuke it?
Spoiler
Erm… I guess so? Maybe they think I’m sharing the source without permission? I have written permission to use it… just to make sure public users can’t see it however.
Well… I’ll deal with it when I get back home.
EDIT: I had to log in to view it again, it got accepted but just hidden to public users. So it’s an internal report now.
3 Likes
hmm I wonder why they would do that
I did ask for the document to not be shared publicly (as was requested by the archivist at NASM), so I guess they made it hidden as precaution or it’s standard procedures for this.
I can reference the data freely though, just not post the document / images of the document to public. So the report did not necessarily have to be hidden (attached documents can’t be seen anyway). But again, maybe it’s just standard procedure.