it didnt actually have ccip for guns that’s why it was removed
not to mention. he has nothing to back his claims that F-100 didn’t get CCIP.
He’s staff? They normally dont need to post claims unless we ask. As ive experienced with my own reports. Regardless if you aren’t willing to find evidence yourself why fight so hard? If you’re that confident that it had it just try to find documents thats really all you can do.
the F-84F did have CCRP for guns a couple months ago they removed it
And this is why ATGM drop 5 ft when launched, and why the F-104’s flight model got fucked, and why so many aircraft that used proxy FFARs were refused their proxy FFARs
Balance and historical accuracy, again if it didnt have it it didnt have it. The US isnt the only nation to have this, as i said earlier if you can find evidence against this then make a bug report. I am not a mod, i dont decide what happens, i can just suggest hostorical things and hope the devs add them.
1 Like
T-80B with thermals has left the chat
Staff refusing to provide sources is why we can’t have good things btw.
Again find evidence to prove them wrong thats all you can do.
1 Like
They needa provide evidence that they’re right first, which they refuse to do. They fact these changes are made with 0 sources provided or explanations are why WT is in the state it’s in now.
He has a mentality that the game needs to cater his wants.
2 Likes
I just want F-84F to be playable and get the CCIP it did irl. I bet your mom says you’re very special.
Again if it did have it irl show evidence. I can show evidence of a vehicle having stuff which has yet to be acknowledged, all i can do is wait.
“Post can’t be empty.”
huh, the “other” section is completely missing on the Steam patchnotes. mb
whats your source for this?
Classic Projection…
1 Like
J-7E should actually have 5000000 meganewtons of thrust…
As far as gaijin is concerned it does, that thing is a monster
The F-104 flight model changes are sourced though, see these two bug reports. (Community Bug Reporting System)
(Community Bug Reporting System)
ATGM dropping is the fault of the physics engine of the game, a side effect of them changing the unrealistic behavior of missiles.
Proxy FFARs are already unrealistic, as the F-89D almost certainly didn’t carry them, and they have never been cleared for aircraft use, except on the OV-10. This can be seen in that pretty much all aircraft manuals publicly available do not list them as an option.
And the T-80B thermals are also real, the Soviets tested multiple T-80Bs with them but never put it into production. (It’s a bit weird since those were just prototypes, but it still has a historical basis)
That’s about the turn rate. Gajin completely fucked the drag for absolutely 0 reason.
Meanwhile Gajin rejects to give tested feature to other vehicles e.g Abrams’ DU armor, again highlighting the same issue
…They have to increase drag to decrease the turn rate? There isn’t a “turn rate” value for each plane, it’s calculated by the game based on a bunch of factors, including drag, which is what they increased to lower the turn rate.
And yes, they don’t give the Abrams DU hulls for balance, the same reason they gave the T-80B thermals. Neither I or Pheonix have denied Gaijin does things for balance, but your claim that they do it without sources is false, which is what I’m addressing.