Looking at this further, even iglas in game appear to be ignoring that their variants have present forward canards. This seems to be a gross misunderstanding of how such missiles maneuver, or an assumption from early igla/small strela missile documents that indicate a loss of aerodynamic forces when canards are not present leaving with few control surfaces in the airstream. Whoever has this presumption needs to disregard what early sourcing they’ve cemented their interpretation of these later systems as it’s simply not applicable here.
5 Likes
The AMX-10P a priori did not have these shells, due to different parts in the guns. Why don’t you add domestic shells for France, but use German ones that don’t even fit the irl?
1 Like
Yes, they added a tree in an uncompetitive state and then abandoned it immediately. And all the big ships we’ve been getting as premiums are already in the game, just being shifted from the tech tree to the premium section.
But yeah, I suppose adding new stuff to naval harms top tier jet sales so they can’t actually work on it.
1 Like
When are you gonna consider adding customizable fuel options? Alot of planes would massively benefit from this change.
8 Likes
+1
Does this mean we will see vehicles like the Sholef?
We have first party test results from the US Army and Raytheon of the the stinger engaging targets maneuvering at 10Gs, so you will now flat out say that these shootdowns of target drones never occurred? We even have sources for it’s predecessor, the redeye hitting targets maneuvering at 6Gs.
From reading through the rest of this statement, it seems like the devs believe that the Mistral and Stinger series function on the principles of a early make Igla which only had a single control surface for control, a issue the Stinger, Mistral and Type 91 do not have as all 3 have 4 primary control surfaces on the missile. From the looks of it, the team does not understand how modern MANPADS control surfaces actually function, something that has been explained countless times in the actual reports, but seemingly glossed over now.
At this point though I guess I cant be surprised, as this is par for the course.
15 Likes
Honestly something that is extremely looked forward too, and certainly keeps people from bugging you guys or complaining since we have the answers now! Where can we leave these questions?
Will an improvement of Type 91 and SAM-1C be considered? These missiles currently pick between two modes, IR and EO, which they don’t in reality.
The real missiles would always use EO with a secondary IR tracking simultaneously to help make up for the shortcomings especially in low light/contrast environments.
This however is not properly represented in game according to the devblog, stating it would exclusively use one type of tracking at a time. This significantly reduces the capabilities of what are currently the most advanced missiles of the tech tree.
This might just be a misunderstanding, with the blog referring to the Strela, but if it doesn’t this should be adressed.
6 Likes
Once my friend linked me this, I got worried. Then I read the Q&A response, and it’s just typical Gaijin BS. Good to see that some things never change. Top notch, guys. Truly showing us you care about the game as usual.
8 Likes
This is more a question to the community, when can i expect the Update or so?
No mention about the most anticipated part of the economy changes. I have a feeling where this is going.
6 Likes
Indeed, that is part of my point. This works very well as anti tank (like the ZSU-57-2), but its AA performance is inferior to its AT potential.
With the HE-VT you can get the it to perform fully as an AA platform without worrying it becoming another tank destroyer.
We’ll see how it performs on the battlefield, and hopefully the vehicle will be adjusted accordingly.
absolutely agree. been getting the F-4J recently, and it just can’t compete in all those 12.0 and 12.3 matches. and many other aircraft suffer a similar fate. an increase in BRs up to let’s say 15.0 for the top tier jets like F-16C, Barak II, MiG-29SMT, and corresponding shift in BRs for the other aircraft could most likely make the game much more enjoyable again
8 Likes
This is the forth update.
1 Like
I completely disagree.
When we compare for example FGR.2 (11.3) to F-4EJ Kai (11.7), Tornado F.3 (11.3) and F-4S (11.3) things get weird. It seems like Spey Phantoms situation is monitored exclusively by player statistics, when it should be based on vehicle’s raw performance.
Kai (11.7):
- better IR missiles
- much better radar missiles
- much better radar
- internal gun
- very similar flight performance
- similar RWR
- radar lead indicator
- 90 flares (same as FGR.2)
- no HMD
Tornado (11.3):
- better IR missiles
- better radar missiles
- better radar
- internal gun (debatable performance)
- worse turn performance
- similar RWR
- radar lead indicator
- 352 flares (262 more than FGR.2)
- no HMD
F-4S (11.3)
- basically the same IR missiles
- much better radar missiles
- same radar
- external gun pod - same as FGR.2
- better turn performance
- similar RWR
- radar lead indicator
- 60 flares (30 less than FGR.2)
- HMD
Based solely on these factors FGR.2 should get AIM-9Ls at the very least.
In fact F-4J (UK) situation is even worse.
I really hope that British Phantom situation will be revised once again, but this time more thoroughly.
21 Likes
It’s actually the third major update since the roadmap was announced if I remember correctly
fair enough i seem to have suffered under momentary confusion, like you constantly did with the last german top tier mbt addition
That’s not what the words mean. It’s talking about of the year.
@x_Shini
Weird since I was correct on the MBT discussion.
u werent, the T72m1 isnt a top tier tank addition you were wrong and i proved it to you every time