So what does P-414 add asides from reliability upgrades that matter more IRL than in game?
2 Likes
Perhaps because most of these reports are based on information from Wikipedia and similar sources. However, if the information is supported by official documents, it is taken into account.
This is not the case. I have seen valid reports be denied.
5 Likes
Just take for example the following report
“Not a bug.
These are inert AGM-65s (blue strips around missile), combat AGM-65s loaded on the LAU-88 cannot be hung next to the LITENING in order to avoid damage the optics by engine flame.”
They don’t even provide a source, just make a statement and assert that it is true, when you would think that if it was an illegal configuration there wouldn’t be images of it, nor would it be permitted since “you train how you fight”.
7 Likes
I know this is a conversation had already, but with this installed, F14IRIAF sitting at 13.0 would cause a lot of pain, but 13.3 or 13.7 seems too mean for a jet without PD mode or all aspect missiles, so how about R73 addition, and put it 13.3, would pretty much eliminate any call of pain since there will not be F4SIIs and the bunch of 12.0 premiums running into it. What do we think?
It’s fascinating to me they don’t allow triple mav next to the targeting pod, but are totally cool with triple mav next to the landing gear, despite the third mav often being omitted out of how close the clearance to the landing gear is.
In real life, yes, six mav is super rare. There are technical (not just tactical) reasons not to do it. However, it is POSSIBLE and we should have it ingame alongside the TGP.
By any logic that says A-10C shouldn’t get 6 mavs+Litening, the Mig-27 family shouldn’t even have a functional cannon, the Yak-141 should be unarmed, the KH-38MT shouldn’t be in the game, etc etc etc.
Russian bias used to be a joke but it is now real. It wasn’t real until the Ka-50 was added, imo
Issue is, Gaijin has none, I agree with ur point except Yak 141 where a different set of rules had to apply otherwise we won’t see the likes of Ho229 in game either. Which some of these I would love to see.
I’m totally cool with a little free reign. My point isn’t that we should be rid of Yak-141, I think it’s great that it’s ingame. I think we should have that AND 6 mav A-10C. the MiG-27 cannon can be reliable ingame.
The only one of the things I mentioned I want gone is KH-38MT
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
3 Likes
No. It’s barely an upgrade. It barely caused “pain” at 12.7. Even the addition of R-73 and its correct ARH loadout wouldn’t warrant 13.3.
that’s because they somehow managed to upgraded them within the last 5 years, the one in-game is its original variant
Does A models(F-14A Early and F-14A IRIAF) even possible to gets FCS?
Afaik, A models did not receive DFCS until the late 90s, and only limited squadrons such as VF-14 Top Hatters and VF-41 Black Aces received it.
Moreover, with the exception of some test beds, the common denominator of the A model that received DFCS is the “ F-14A late” with ALR-67 RWR, Bombcat and PTID upgrade modifications, which have not yet been implemented in the game.
2 Likes
All F-14s had a flight control system. DFCS was an upgrade to that system.
I forgot F14 has AFCS for somehow 💀
1 Like
Update.
it was denied because my firsthand accounts were considered invalid. I might try and reason with them because the F-14 IRAF was the late model. tbh i might just send a F-14A Late document but i doubt it
I wish it was that way.
what report is this from lmao?
The Eurofighter Mach 1.5 supercruise report.
I do find it funny that Gaijin somehow decided that was the best reply to a highly contentious bug report lol.
1 Like