I just think you guys take things too personal, even more when we consider it’s just a game afterall… For me the recent f-15 report just debunks this narrative of him being biased or something like that, but whatever
2 Likes
You are absolutely right.
However… just a game you say??? I have never invested so much money into something that offered no monetary return outside a sports car…
Lol we are not players anymore we are investors at this point!
(I want my in-game title)
3 Likes
The F-15 change was a tweak, buffed in some areas, nerfed in others, and it made it more accurate. We also have no idea how many of these fm changes the devs were planning already.
Generally I would be inclined to agree with you, but when you’ve seen the way he consistently behaves, it’s hard to draw any other conclusions.
4 Likes
The limitations with that is that transmitter comes from the F4 phantom, it has 200W and lower gain. Higher energy output is more range. The APG-63 uses the the null filling horn to for similar purposes the difference is that the sparrow sees the return from the main antenna and the null filling horn provides the reference signal incase the sparrow has to move outside of the main beam to lead or something. The main antenna has a higher peak power(5kW pulse peak power) and gain than the 200W illuminator, all this allows the seeker to pick uo the target at a much more farther range than 22N.M for a 2m² target
If by time-division manner you mean like how the N019-N001 operate, 10ms for tracking followed by 20m.s for CW guidance then no so no warning. It doesn’t mention anything about a change in signal other than HPRF nor any implication in doing so in the F15-34s nor in the armament manual. If that were possible then there wouldn’t be a need to stay in HPRF, do the 10ms in MPRF to allow full aspect tracking tracking.
Only time I would think are for update MSIP2(85’-87’), updated APG63s to apg 70 standard, which also came with Range Gated HPRF(like MPRF processing). Denoted with a Hi+ on the radar scope(See bottom left). And
And its not a new 90s 2000s stuff as the APG-65(F-18A 83-84) came with NCTR, TWS and Range Gated High PRF in 85. The F-18 also able to do fire using the RG HPRF.
4 Likes
The F15A needs a buff.
How
HMD would be a start idk
Isn’t that an upgrade for MSIP F-15Cs?
1 Like
yeah but im talking about the one in game it kind of sucks the aim7m sucks and i have the su27 so believe me when i tell you its vastly superior currently IN GAME
1 Like
So your saying that mig23 isnt proposing changes to make things more accurate? What if the vikhr is underperforming lmao sure its op but the goal is accuracy. If mig23 is commited to improving the accuracy of a certain nation it is because he wants accuracy not to artificially buff the Ussr. Mig23 has consistently made reports and used actually sources to substantiate them feel free to include evidence that his reports are untrue. If you want bias look at ziggy in the mig29 thread lol, he couldnt believe that the mig29 wasnt underperforming inspite of evidence that it was fine. Will look into the gripen drama though looks fun
5 Likes
They take it too personally and can’t be honest with themselves in the discussion
4 Likes
I mean its not unreasonable, everyone wants their favorite planes to be good, assuming it equates to accuracy. When a change is proposed if it counters what they want they feel like it is targeted at them/their nation. It doesnt help that the entire game has this air of russian bias
1 Like
I’m all for accuracy. Except it isn’t underperforming. Judging by combat footage from the war that shan’t be named, it is massively overperforming. Mig_23M conveniently never shares his sources, or when he does they are ancient pdfs about completely tangent topics.
Considering that sources are necessary for reports i find that unlikely, especially since ive seen him share both pictures of and the actual sources themselves. Combat footage is not helpful for modeling, though it can be evidence for revision of a fm which needs to be substantiated with actual documents. Also old doesnt mean not helpful or not true. The biggest problem is a lack of bad faith on both sides, once hostility starts its easy for me to see the aggressor as less credible, a reputation that doesnt leave them. Just need a perception reset so everyone accepts criticism
1 Like
I don’t care about my perception at all - it doesn’t aid in correcting unrealistic performance.
Often when things overperform (and is often the case for NATO stuff oddly enough)… they hide the useful information and do not share it under any circumstances.
4 Likes
Well im trying to be impartial here, i meant that those who immediately reject others as trolls or derailers (in this case biased) due to past transgressions should actually consider propositions before denouncing anything again. You have cultivated a reputation that leads people to erroneously discredit you and your motives, i want others to look at the substance of your arguemsnts on a case by case basis. eliminates the previously discussed personal offense
1 Like
They should heavily criticize everything I’ve ever posted… but yes on an individual basis. There’s a reason I’ve passed so many reports.
AMRAAMs can go active from launch, they automatically go active at 16kph whether the host radar has a lock or not.
Vikhr is missing 200mm of flat pen, and adjusted accordingly for higher angles. Other than that it’s the same with the other missiles in game.
So there is an inaccuracy? lol thats crazy i though mig23 wanted the vikhr to go 10^9 m/s so that his favorite vehicle the ka52 could be better /s
1 Like