Tbh, i dont mind it having flares even tho what it the vehicle tries to represent did not in fact use the flare dispensers.
I think it would be cool from a vehicle uniqueness perspective that it is accurate to the 12 aircraft it tries to represent.
If a vehicle tries to be a specific version of a vehicle i think it ideally should be akkurate to that vehicle. Same way the Swedish Tiger is accurate to how that vehicle was and is not some generic Tiger 2 p like the one in the germab tech tree.
I mean, T-2 is 9.7 with Aim-9J. Given the performance similarities and differences between it and the F-5C (without flares), that would seem like a reasonable assumption.
The F-1 goes to 10.3 just because it got more Aim-9J and CCIP.
Tbh the T-2 is probably more favorable at 9.7 than a flareless F-5C just because of the missiles together with nose authority.
Ur delusional. Its obviously a cracked and OP flight model, and it has been for years
He mentions that both plane sits at same br while one of them is objectively worse in almost every way.
He’s right about that.
I personally don’t mind the flares assuming they’re there for balance reasons. Its a sort of “semi-historical” upgrade that they’ve done before, so I think it’s okay. The game has long since gone away from 100% historical accuracy, such as the T-54 (1949) getting 3BM8 (in service ~1967), or the whole debate on implementing AIM-9E/J when the German Phantoms were introduced. I don’t mind it, the problem with the F-5C is that the flares are way too good because the engine(s) are absurdly cold. They don’t measure temperature by afterburner they measure it by the middle of the engine or something so the flares are almost always a guaranteed failsafe.
The flight model is the worst at 11.0. Literally zero aircraft is worse than the F-5A/C at 11.0 in airframe performance.
At 10.3 there were at least 5 aircraft equivalent to it before Hungary was added and Mig-21s corrected.
Most aircraft as good as the F-5A/C is at 10.3 [with flares] and 9.3/9.7 without flares.
Yeah, but then it’d probably be forced down in BR. Isn’t that a worse thing to do?
I think the flares on F-5A/C wouldn’t be an issue if afterburner heat plume was taken into consideration because right now they can avoid missiles easier than Harriers due to somehow colder running engine…
I’ve had few F-5Cs flare a Magic 2 fired below 1.5km in rear aspect. Magic 2 at that range AND in rear aspect shouldn’t be able to be flared
No, F-1 is more favourable, because 10.3 is king BR now, always fighting 9.3
F-5C FM is miles better than T-2/F-1 flight model. T-2/F-1 is basically a god damn jaguar
Well cool story but these BRs aren’t gonna stay for very long.
F-5C and T-2 have effectively dogfight performance.
Both pulling similar sustained degree per second, and max turns.
T-2 loses all speed immediately
Complete fabrication. Fully and actually at this point deliberate misinformation.
If you pull too hard. If you pull identically to an F-5C it loses no speed.
@Italy_Suffers Is claiming all facts in the world are fabrications and misinformation.
Bet they’ve called teachers fabricators.
Brother, people aren’t arguing about it in simulator, you don’t use precision hotas in RB which allows you to very finely control elevator.
You finely control the mouse…
At this point you have No clue what you are talking about
He never had a clue
In some respects yes, but you also dont have an Aim-9J.
Which means a flareless F-5C would have to allways avoid a launch angle against a fighter with a lot of nose authority should it decide to use it.