Already disproved this claim
MAWS is integrated, just not installed, there is nothing stopping said systems from being installed, the same is the case with the MRML.
It is as technically sound to apply such features as a number of other choices made for other vehicles. We either hold the EX to the same standard or none of them.
Such has already been discussed at length long ago here.
7 Likes
Documents state the KH-38 series is only compatible on Su-34 and Su30MK (MKK and Mk2 in game), however these predate the Su-30SM so gaijin/bug reporters took liberties to give the SM and co their KH38s
but the same can’t be applied for MRML on the inner pylon, which is already on the F-15C GE ingame!!! and on the F-15EX itself but just on a different pylon, or MAWS that the F-15EX has the provisions to mount already, garbage, you are biased and it’s clear for all to see
8 Likes
I am being as nuanced as possible, I stand to gain from both Su-30s and f-15EX doing well, so use your brain mate
I am already in support of MRML, and this has remained consistent in this thread and others, just scroll up.
MAWs is dubious but if no US MAWs means they go out of their way to nerf the IA out of spite then I’ll support giving them MAWs as well
Its the same situation with the F-15GE mounting GBU-53s on it’s rail pylons while the F-15E and F-15EX cannot for some unknown reason.
Its a arbitrary choice.
I still stand on the side of everyone getting the best equipment for their vehicles full stop regardless of nation, if it can or was planned to have such on said vehicle, it should be a option.
I’ll be real, this is vastly more real than the YAK-141 ever having a radar.
There is seriously no equivalence possible, the MAWS are there on a F-15EX which then entered US operation.
That is more than enough for countless other aircraft to get concessions, why is the EX unique here?
2 Likes
because it is a US aircraft, therefore must be held to drastically higher restrictions in order to nerf it so that russian only players don’t cry their brains out
3 Likes
(Not directed at you, but) Forming negative opinions around this so early in the dev period is counterproductive as it’ll almost 100% be fixed by the end of next week, similarly for all inaccuracies with the EX currently.
However I thoroughly believe MRML is being withheld for balancing purposes, not a lapse in realism
Same here, but it’s nice to get bug report out and forwarded for balance considerations if necessary in future.
The above has been a reported issue for the F-15E since the GE got added since it also mounts GBU-39s the same exact way.
This is not a new issue and has existed for a long while.
As said I brought such up as the above choice is obviously a arbitrary one made by gaijin for some reason.
Nope, I will never accept such, either give the vehicle it’s full capabilities or admit the game is not realistic. As long as the KH-38 and KH-58 exist I will not accept any concessions of actual vehicle capabilities for “balance”, especially at top tier.
If the capability is not modeled in game, eg the EFT’s radar MAWS, fine, leave it out, denying a capability for “balance” is unacceptable in the current state of the game.
3 Likes
Difference is that this is a major money maker for gaijin, and a headline vehicle, literally gets the whole update to itself, so changes are far more likely to occur now.
12 fox 3s is the current upper ceiling for ARH missile counts, no jets have more than this for a reason, if the Su-30 and J-16 got more missiles, then I’d come out and support MRML to bring the number up to 16, but it’s simply unrealistic for current air rb standards.
MRML can get added tomorrow but fox 3 counts should still be capped at 12, with the outer wing pylons used for aim-9s… that’s fine in my eyes
2 Likes
Missed the point, it should not have been the case in the first place.
Don’t care, once again, either give everyone their full capabilities or nobody, its not Boeing’s fault they crammed so many AIM-120s on the EX.
Once again, this is a binary issue to me, balance is irrelevant if there is any choice to chase realism.
Vehicles either get everything or nothing, there is no nuance here.
As I have already said, I’m on the side of all nations getting the best form of their equipment.
2 Likes
Su-30 and J-16 can do PSM, while F-15 is glued to rails as tradeoff for its missile loadout.
All 3 of these are unreasonable responses sorry, not going to engage.
I’ve explained why the 16, let alone 20 and 22 fox 3 counts are not only unreasonable for current air rb standard, but highly dubious too in the case of the 20 and 22 count, as AMBER racks have been acknowledged as non-functioning by gaijin.
Gaijin taking a while to correct bug reports is not remotely exclusive to US jets, pretending otherwise is tonedeaf.
PSM is not only useless, but actively counterproductive to fox3 combat, and people doing cobras in air rb are missile fodder.
Next?
1 Like
As is the YAK-141 in totality, the upcoming H39, the IR KH-38, and a myriad of other paper / unbuilt vehicles and equipment offered in game, this is irrelevant if we are to hold the EX to the same standard present in game for said other vehicles.
Accepted otherwise is embracing a blatant double standard.
1 Like
Do people not realize that the standard has changed? I swear, half the mods on this forum and bug reporting site don’t even know about it.
Its frustrating to see one mod say one thing and another mod say the complete opposite
Suggestion mod in this case so they don’t deal with such as much, Gunjob and the good techmods already understand this, the remaining ones are techmods that don’t frequent here to begin with like he who shall not be named.
Gaijin says this not me, gaijin makes the game, gaijin had final say on all of this… argue with them mate
I only pay attention to the the suggestion standards, which haven’t had such a change, different teams operate by different standards.