Oh yes, I saw. No fun calling it Saab F-35 (especially when it has never been referred to by that name), annd F-35 would be more funny to make people lose their mind at a glance.
Good thing I made a comprehensive list of all the modifications that it should have so it can be corrected!
Yeah i was just wondering, good post though
Always loved these images, ive only seen a few of our Drakens in person unfortunately would love to see a few more
I grew up near one that was turned into an arcade (I think). Full airframe mounted on hydraulics outside with a monitor encompassing the cockpit. Not sure if it works anymore though.
Here are some of the other good images I managed to dig out (that aren’t just from the Tinbox book, I’ll fetch those another time)
![09 Formation - Draken formation AR-117 04 Enhanced|724x531]
(upload://scwuDEdEcQeKJ2i3A8o9j7Q1dIw.jpeg)
FINALLY! I remember reading ur post long time ago on the old forums about this plane and i have been hoping that it would be added, NOW IT IS COMING!!! :D
Congrats 👏
I like this image, it is like the one plane that has been highlighted like some kind of sci-fi target vision.
At least it’s not a premium
Hoping the don’t pull another j35XS and copy on draken and call it good. as of now it’s a carbon copy of the J35XS with the correct nose but pylons, countermeasures and its locations and having a radar are wrong. crossing my fingers they aren’t last minute lazy with this one.
it doesn’t have a functioning radar rn
it’s just in the damage model
Oh yes, good find!
I’ll do you another favor and give you the these from the manual, as I think you may find them useful
Gaijin better not tell me they can’t model the inside, because I got it all! And even more in my “F-35 Bible” that can even tell you the exact external differences from each model of the airframe. I’m out here like a hawk if I must be
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
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.
If you want, I can help with reports.
