Consider changing the keybinds! you’ll see that they are a lot more practical that way :)
You can find the test-flight record for every loadout, besides the extra AMRAAM, in the Test Store Loading table from the F-16XL Flight-Test Logs(p. 309-333) from the Elegance in Flight. It is quite unlikely that one of all the loadouts in the whole table is wind-tunnel only.
Really need to decrease the time these events take. 45k score is WAY too much. 20k score would be more reasonable. I already have one full time job.
3 Likes
Unfortubately they see two approaches:
No job/responsibilities = much time = grind and populate the game
Full time job = you have money = you are expected to pay
3 Likes
Those kind of event make the game toxic and it’s not the players fault but the target…
Games full of base rusher and top tier premium, the guys take their most reliable planes and it make everything else just dogmeat.
The only way to manage to get points in a relative reasonable amount of time is killing plane (forget about base or ground pounding, rewards/risk are a joke) and the only way to compete is to get the most broken planes 😖
1 Like
The full test-flight MK-82 bomb loadout should be just 12
The extra pair of AMRAAMs mounted on the wings is missing. Noticed that the Configuration in the F-16XL Flight-Test Logs and the Loading Title are the same.
Every loadout, besides the extra AMRAAM, can be clearly traced back to its test-flight record in the Test Store Loading table from the F-16XL Flight-Test Logs(p. 309-333) from the Elegance in Flight. It is quite unlikely that the two extra AMRAAM loadouts out of all in the whole table are planned or wind-tunnel only.
For the pair fuselage AMRAAMs loadout, the test flight log specifically stated which pair position the AMRAAMs were loaded to
3 Likes
i use W and S for throttle, and Z and X as pitch, everthing else ive left pretty much
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just Gajin being lazy as usual, but it’s also possible they purposefully omited two AMRAAMs so that it could be a lower BR than the F-16ADF as otherwise it would just be a direct downgrade.
1 Like
This plane can be put in higher BR with its stronger jet engine, HMD, 1990s DFCS upgrade. It is a very high-performance fighter with tons of public study about it.
Yes.
7 Likes
wrong those are all things that the F-16XL-2 had
Besides the HMD, all other features are either universal or XL-1-tested-specific.
For the extra pair of AMRAAMs mounted on underwing pylons, it was only tested on the XL-1; guess how they got the 70% drag reduction result
“Similarly, four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles carried in semisubmerged fashion on ejector-launchers under the F-16XL fuselage produced a carriage drag reduction of 70 percent when compared to the drag produced by the same number of AMRAAMs mounted on conventional underwing pylons.”
You cannot make the “carriage drag reduction of 70 percent” conclusion if they didn’t test on the same plane. I also have flight test logs and a loadout table to support the claim that the F-16 XL-1 can mount two more AMRAAMs under its wing
You missed the Intended in your quote there. Isn’t that quite a double standard to state that all missing features I stated are "wrong; those are all things that the F-16XL-2 had, while using the same Intended to validate the four AIM-120 mounts and the APG-68 on the F-16XL?
and to figure that out you dont need to be able to carry 4 AMRAAMs under the wings
you can figure that out by looking at the drag that they produce on a normal F-16
that dosent mean that the F-16XL is able to carry underwing AMRAAMs
The loadout table only said one AMRAAM on each wing.
There are still Flight test logs and loadout tables supporting my claim, and no, there was no such thing as AMRAAMs mount on normal F-16 in 1983-1985. Even those on the F-16XL were just model mockup. There was no missile, dedicated AMRAAMs mount or launching mechanism. The loadout of the F-16A in the competitive flight test was just 4 AIM-9s.
Source:F-16XL Demonstrates New Capabilities in Flight Test at Edwards Air Force Base
go and make a bug report if you are soo sure
but none of the flight test logs you sent said anything about more than 4 amraams
Here are the respective flight log and loadout table. A/A is the default 6-missile loadout. Just doing name matching here, like the “12 Mk-82” loadout. Both the table and log stated that it is 12 Mk-82 bombs + the default missile loadout but the A/A part is omitted from the name.
The extra pair of AMRAAMs mounted on the wings is missing. Noticed that the Configuration in the F-16XL Flight-Test Logs and the Loading Title are the same.
Every loadout, besides the extra AMRAAM, can be clearly traced back to its test-flight record in the Test Store Loading table from the F-16XL Flight-Test Logs(p. 309-333) from the Elegance in Flight. It is quite unlikely that the two extra AMRAAM loadouts out of all in the whole table are planned or wind-tunnel only.
1 Like
1 Like
You should really think about decompression and some BR adjustments, just a few examples: MiG-29 with R-60M and R-27ER at 12.7, F-16XL with AIM-120 and MiG-29 with R-73 and R-27ER at 13.0, F-16ADF and Su-30MK2 at 13.3.
2 Likes