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.
6 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 :)
2 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
4 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.
2 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