did you send this as a bug report?
I took one look at the site for that and closed it; I got absolutely zero idea how in the world you’re supposed to navigate that site. So no, I have not
then none of your Source material has any use for us
I’ve been in contact with people on the team that has seen this suggestion, and would disagree with this claim of yours, but yes; when it is added to the game, it won’t help any longer to post here
I just can’t be bothered to learn how oddly specific you need to be on the bug report page to even get it qualified, especially when the model is currently as unfinished as it is; they know what’s wrong and they’ll fix at least 95% of it by the time the update goes live
1 Like
I would like to, but I don’t understand the site used to submit them.
But they already gave it the wrong missiles, namely the 9B should be the AIM-9B FGW.2. At the very least it should be an option to bring it!
Obviously the 9N should be the AIM-9N-2, and I got sources to back this up. The missile may not be in the game, but with my incredibly limited amount of coding knowledge, I would presume changing a value from 2.2 to 3.2 is not an impossible task, at least.
I also know it isn’t a balance issue, because we already got stuff like the AV-8C with a remarkably similar missile, except it has 5 seconds of burn time. Yet that thing is at 9.7! Sure it also has way less ordnance, but when they can only carry two missiles each, what does that matter in air combat, right?
Center pylon is still missing (5), and the manual states it can mount bombs on it so that’s a given.
Are the MK20 Rockeyes essential? Not really no, nor do they serve a purpose at present unless they get a buff to airfield bombing damage. So until they have a purpose, those can stay off really.
They literally added the control panel for MFCD in the cockpit,
which is problematic because it is currently missing a pretty crucial part of MFCD; namely the tailhook pods.
Speaking of countermeasures; EMFCD is still absent. Could it be logical? Yes, it is optional for awhile in its lifespan, however it seems unwise to add the most upgraded model of the aircraft without it, when the previous model does not feature EMFCD at all.
(Don’t forget the added right wing root flare modules!)
The tailhook has been added, and is modelled, but it doesn’t actually do anything. I can kinda see that since it isn’t meant for carriers, and the only place using wires is still carriers, but ehhh… Idk. It’s visually there, but doesn’t extend, yet game does not support its purpose on runways yet either.
The missils amusingly currently have no pylon connecting them to the wings, but that’s surely just a visual glitch that will be fixed before launch.
Obviously there are some textures missing still, but that’s just a matter of time.
Hopefully I can get someone to help me with operating the bug report site and then I can pitch it all.
6 Likes
If you want, I can help with reports.
2 Likes
1 Like
Probably a very dumb question, but is that an arrestor hook between the built-in CM dispensers on the underside? If it is, it currently doesn’t work/lower, so it may need to be bug reported.
Isn’t that the rear wheel container’s rail?
That is an arrestor hook yes.
However, I kinda get why Gaijin did not make it functional. Even if we ignore its tendency to swivel upon touchdown, as seen here;
the actual hook in-game has no purpose. This is not a carrier aircraft, and never was intended to be. These hooks were planned for the Swedish models too, but never fitted after entering service over there. We kept them on the other hand, and their purpose was to stop the aircraft from running off the runway, and avoid deploying the safety net to stop them. Since we have no runway arrestor hooks in the game, the hook here serves no purpose, and I agree with the comment that someone made regarding how ridiculous it would be to see usage off a carrier due to it.
Therefore, as of right now when this feature is not in the game, I do not mind Gaijin making it non-functional. I’ll be speaking up if it isn’t working when they do add the wires to airfields though
2 Likes
Honestly its be nice to see them work on standard Runways, the Finnish Hornets have their hooks and irl use them to hwlp slow down their Hornets. Would be a nuce gimmick imo
It is funcitonal actually, I tested it in game.
The same way the F-16 has an arrestor hook yet it was never intended to be used on a carrier. It can land on a carrier and the same can be done with the F-35
2 Likes
I’ll admit, I am not a fan of that. And all the same I have not noticed it yet, but thanks for pointing it out. I hope they remove it sooner rather than later
Understandable, but Im afraid that it will stay like this. If they really wanted only naval aircraft to be able to land on carriers then they would have done that change a long time ago. As it stands right now if you have a hook and youre not a naval aircraft you can land and be respawned in the air. While naval aircraft can both land and take off/be catapulted off the carrier.
1 Like
Pretty sure f-15’s are the same way. Think they could actually land on a carrier though?
As F-35 (WDNS) has been added as a part of update 2.47 Leviathans,
Moved to Implemented Suggestions. o7