In the manual it says something about increasing seeker width as well? I would like H sidewinders on them now after hearing that they are better.
They could even carry Ls
Why don’t they than. Or give the Shars HUDS so they can actually be played in SIM. or EEGS for frs.1
This is more manoeuvrable then what we currently have ingame btw.
a trainer version with a heavier front less powerful engine IRL is better then the combat versions inagme…
Truly the “2600 historically accurate and detailed models / internals” i signed up for
3 Likes
The NASA report quite literally states “turn performance as a function of Mach number and altitude” and the devs went mhmm yes this must be ITR
3 Likes
Legitimately yes lol. I have a time to climb report up along with a video proving it takes too long. The devs replied to the Tech Mod I’ve been talking with stating they managed to get it within a few seconds of the time i stated it needed to be.
The tech mod asked how (its not possible) and they never replied to my knowledge
3 Likes
God knows.
I can almost forgive something like the SRAAM having 2+ year old reports yet to be fixed, its a niche missile barely used by anyone… But there is what? 14 ish Harriers accross 4 different nations now and nothing. Not even basic stuff is fixed like the sooty exhausts
1 Like
Neither the FoV (Instantaneous Field of View) / FoR (Field of Regard, all points in space that are searched though one cycle of the scan pattern) is actually increased over the -9G, it’s just a more consistent search pattern that practically has a constant polling rate regardless of where in the FoR the point in question is, it’s just that the Non-Radar Slaved elements of SEAM functionality are not modeled for any Sidewinders.
And due to the issues with improper / simplified thermal modeling, they would catch and lock-onto flares constantly so it’s not an advantage at least for now.
Even if Sidewinders should be much more resistant to Flares;
2 Likes
I can’t believe 5 years nearly and its just been a lumbering brick in the sky for that long lol. Has no one thought it underperforms?
The devs really do seem to have bias against it. I don’t like to throw that whole bias cope out their too much but its not even close to IRL performance.
3 Likes
13!! thats kind of crazy
1 Like
and easily a few more on the way.
Harrier Gr5
Harrier Gr9A
AV-8B(DA)
EAV-8B+
Harrier T8
3 Likes
Makes me wonder if any Yak-38 documents were used, or being referenced?
1 Like
totally lol. In fact ive tested the Yak-38 a lot and you would be surprised to see that the difference in performance is actually very small.
Yak-38 is faster and climbs better, Harrier turns better in game
IRL Harrier is better by a lot in basically every way
TBH, i will say the Yak 38 is TERRIBLE. But it probably still performs better ingame then IRL.
Plane with so little combat experience they knew it was a deathtrap when they flew it for the first time and they couldnt use it in the heat.
VS
Plane thats over 50 years old, with an OUTSTANDING track record (Falklands Gen 1 harriers when INSANE), and is still in service with the B models today
IIRC, it was mentioned somewhere that the Yak-38 used the Harrier’s FM (for low speed handling) due to a lack of data on actual performance or something.
1 Like
In the hover the Yak-38 is currently better than the Harrier in game. It even has an Auto Hover SAS mode it doesn’t lose 50% thrust just by moving forward either.
from what I understand. It is correct with the old FMs, but incorrect with the new FMs or something. But overall, The Harriers were very good.
The Harrier Gr1 was very good and only started suffering after all-aspects were added and SRAAMs were broken.
AV-8A, AV-8C and Harrier Gr3 are and were fairly solid, but the compression is just more punishing these days
The Harrier Gr7 was an absolute powerhouse monster when it was added and can still be very potent. But the BOL nerfs totally screwed its one major advantage and now it only ever sees missiles that are good at dealing with flares , including those IRCCM missiles all with a fraction of the CMs it once had
Things didnt really start going proprerly down hill for the Harriers until the SHars were added and they were even worse when added and were for 9 months until they got the correct radar and cockpit. Didnt touch it once in those 9 months, saw no point with the Gr7 so much better only 0.3 BR higher back then in SIM
The inclusion of IRCCM has just made the issues with heats sigs even worse, especially for those at BRs where they now always see them, like the FA2 and AV-8B+ jsut makes the heat sig issues way more pronounced than they ever were at 9.7
2 Likes
Couldnt have said better myself…
poor harriers :(
Yes the FA.2 is sometimes a real nightmare to play. I think the FM was the same since day 1 though.
The Harrier 2 is lacking like 10 degrees Max AOA achievable without VIFF and is seriously dangerous in a dogfight. It would be hilarious to see any F-15 or F-16 try turn fight a Harrier with its correct performance.
1 Like