Not surprising. It’s a very widely used aircraft family with a long service and upgrade history, which has seen service in 35 countries at least…
Again im well aware of that. But were still missing many indigenous planes and vehicles from.nations, hell even off the top of my the F-2 is still not in japan yet has the F15 msip.
Makes no sense at all.
While the F5s had upgrade programs the F5E FCU for example is still not much different to the TT E just has more and better missiles.
This F5 will be the same idea, just another energy fighter too slow for its BR with good missiles.
btw that doesn’t mean I believe theyre over BRd.
I think the 5C moving down to 10.7 was quite a bad idea itself.
Freedom Fighter and Tiger II models have been in game for a while and don’t need as much work to adapt to other versions. F-15 versions as well I guess are easily adapted from the existing models.
The F-2 is quite a different design and the model probably can’t be based off the F-16 as easily, I’d assume.
Exactly my point?
Why arent they actively designing the model of the F2, once it releases now itll be overshadowed by the F15s, and heck maybe even teh 16AJ (which as far as we know never even made it there)
The F5’s overall arent anything new, same frame, new camo and an already in game missile. thats it man.
Most trees now are getting copy paste tanks, even britain getting the strala and such just because its an easy way to port resources rather than actively design something.
Or focus on the thousands of bug reports.
So really, it mekes no sense why we dont have the Mistubishi F2 in game yet.
We have 5 unique F-5’s ingame, 3 copy paste, and 1 that doesn’t fit either category.
U.S.
F-5E
F-5C
F-5A
Japan
F-5T SCU
F-5E FCU
F-5C
Sweeden
F-5A(G)
China
F-5A
F-5E
Out of all of these, only the Chinese F-5s (no surprise it’s China) and the Japan F-5C are copy paste. The rest of the F-5s are unique, depending on whether you count the American F-5C and F-5A as copy paste (they’re practically identical), since one is premium and one is event.
1 Like
Out of all of these, only the Chinese F-5s (no surprise it’s China)
How funny, the Chinese F-5A was introduced before the American F-5A, which one is the actual copy? Gaijin is the one which makes the Chinese gameplay at around 1.0 to 8.7 feel repetitive, the nation has many unique vehicles which could be added into the game but they’re almost entirely avoided for unknown reasons.
F-5C
Thailand never operated the F-5C, the F-5C Skoshi was specialised for the Vietnamese war - what we’ve got in-game is the F-5A for Japan (making four F-5As including the F-5A(G)).
Fact check yourself before you spew out nonsense
3 Likes
As well as this, how many of the F5s are actually different outwith what i stated of just missiles / ordenance.
Like the F5E FCU does that not have a near identical FM and engines to the F5E for USA?
The F5T ive yet to compare as Im on a break but as far as I know, most the F5’s arent masively different to one another bar the A/C compared to E which has a different model and whatnot.
Japan has a lot of jets which aren’t in game.
For ground britain has a lot of tanks from various centurions, vickers and cheiftains missing, spaags.
USA missing soooo many of its prototype and early production stuff like the T95 series of proto MBTs.
etc etc.
most trees rather than get unique indigenous stuff are getting literal copy paste, or very close to it equipment.
A lot? Like what?
F-2…
…and…
…and…
…ehm.
1 Like
…
Big F-2?
We have:
5 Likes
So my guess of Big F-2 was correct
Thats just the F2s as well.
T-4 as far as Im aware was also trialed with weapons on the hardpoints, but ill dig that up when im actively playing WT again and CBA with it.
Doesnt really matter what we all bicker over anyways gaijins gonna just do what it does.
1 Like
I know, that was the Joke. Japan does have more left, though it still isn’t a lot compared to other nations. XT-4 would be really nice, and so would other rank 5s like the T-1s, T-33 and Vampire T55.
2 Likes
Thats my point but folks just wanna say “just the F2”
and leave it with a bunch of copy paste.
Much like the tanks for most nations, look at britain its the designer and manufacturer of the damn centurion and theres more cents in trees like isreal and sweden xD
Centurion alone goes up to mk12. theres what, the mk 1 , 3 and ten in the tt?
France the same so many amx30s left out to dry, or fix leclercs etc, slam some leo2s in there and a nearly entirely C&P air line and call it a day.
I really do not believe its fair to those who put thousands of hours, and however much money into the game to get hte same platforms constantly.
T1S would be an awesome addition for example.
But I digress as I said its pointless
1 Like
Those are all poorly armed trainers (not similar to other trainers like Saab 105 or Strikemaster, which can well serve in roles other than those Japanese trainers…=.
What do you want to do with them? They would just prolong the progression…
1 Like
Could, please, people who are absolutely uninterested in Japanese vehicles will not say their “important” opinion about Japanese tree?
Please let the Japanese mains, who understand all tree problems, decide what they need
1 Like
Anyone managed to get the penguin working in GroundRB. I see in stats Lock Range 2.5 Km.
I tried further away and I am unable to get a lock.
This is completely independent of the Japanese tree, and implying I am uninterested in the Japanese tree is out of place (and wrong).
As to “main”, maybe think about the possibility that players who do not focus on one tree alone may actually but play many or all trees also have a valid understanding and opinion about specific trees, maybe even more so as they have a wider experience to compare.
My point - and this is again not at all Japan specific - is that such for practical means unarmed or very lightly armed aircraft like those trainers have gameplay-wise little to do in WT. Apart from completeness and iconic status I see no reason to add a T-33 to any tree, not Japan, not US, not Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, whatever.
Tried it out a bit yesterday in test flight, and am not impressed. Only way I could get it to work more or less reliably against ships was by marking the position of the ship on the map (or with the HUD), as SPI, den launch the missile. This also from maybe 10km away.
But - once again - for Sim players there are zero indications about what the missile actually tracks (in external view you see a crosshair on the tracked target), only the text “tracking” indicating you can fire, but you’re not sure what you firing at…
Against tanks I only managed near hits (aka “miss”). Maybe works better in real battles, as the training targets in test flight are very close together. Maybe also try with marking the targets map position…
2 Likes