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.
Cool, report got accepted as well :)
Also I guess there’s no problem with using the AV-8B tacman afterall…? I will be a little sad though if it becomes “not a bug” in the coming days with a response like “weapons delivery manual of F-xx (and F-xx no.2) states that Mav 65D/G have 30-15° fov”. I hope the developers recognize that those values are likely typos that persisted, especially when there’s 0 mention of the IIR Mav FoVs in text form (whereas they do explicitly mention those of the 65A and B). The fact it’s just a factor of 10 difference makes it just so probable that they forgot a decimal point.
1 Like
Bug report:
Lantirn TGP angular limits:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4TBNnByBG63x
Yeah, well the AF magazine does mention this quote:
Should also be a roll stabilized image
1 Like
I think most pods should be (Litening for example)
Not sure why they don’t spend the time to implement it, given how annoying it is … Like how difficult would it be to just rotate the image and keep the sky up …
1 Like
Probably more difficult in the way they have implemented it currently. What they can do to significanlty improve on this is to adjust the sideways angles. Currently limited to 90° to the left/right. If they simply up it to the same angle as the depression angle (as simulating a 90° roll), the image will stay upright for a larger sector. Only the Damocles has this modelled right now, but I can’t say for sure it works like I described. It seems to at least be considerable better at keeping a lase at least because of the larger coverage.
That’s true, so I do hope this change goes through. Definitely makes more sense as well as helping out some planes, in particular incredibly helpful for the otherwise fairly sad F-4F KWS. With the change, it can at least see. The A-10A Late and Kurnass 2000 might become too strong after this change however… The KWS and Kurnass 2000 are both also a bit weird, the KWS gets like gen 1.5 thermals on the Mavs and the Kurnass 2000 gets gen 2. Not sure why this is, but more such inconsistencies exist.
Also just because the document is unclassified doesn’t necessarily mean it’s useable. At least I was told to be careful and not use it (for now) as the front does say this:
But the document is pretty old now, 23 years. It’s also not export restricted (those warnings look different), so I suppose it’s semi fine. I think the (unwritten) rule was to wait 30 years or something however.