Yeah… Just need to look at Sweden and Britain air to see how much they are struggling with it currently…
Certainly seems air develops a lot faster than ground. 12.7 CAS is probably only around the corner. So would help mitigate CAS in GRB too.
I mean isn’t the game engine catered more toward flight Sim?
Uh… a little? at least air was what WT was originally, ground and naval were addons essentially.
Though I’d argue ground and even naval have more advanced damage models these days than air.
aircraft still have some pretty glaring issues at times
If you have enough info and sources on this, would be better posted as a vehicle suggestion on the forum.
Yeah, I’d buy it. Literally, and whatnot.
I don’t think we’re going to see a new nation though but…
1 Like
I mean its the rumours and round up thread, I’m just connecting the dots here
Never say never lol
1 Like
I want to believe, but I’m just not feeling it, y’know?
1 Like
I mean, a lot of stuff is careful guess work given anything new is secret still. Not surprised there are issues, I think that is just a given. But it having start as air initially would make sense that the Air tech trees are further along. Though newer and newer mechanics that never existed in the game before I can see why it takes a long time. Hell, Bohemia Interactive stretches the engine Arma 3 is on and hit walls with optimization and before releasing a 4th title in the series they built a whole new game engine from scratch. Sometimes I wonder if doing a whole new engine for War Thunder that from the start includes all of these mechanics in the initial framework. (I could be talking out my a**, as my coding experience is with Javascript and SQF. I don’t know too much about War Thunder’s inner workings.)
Ah right yeah, I see what you mean. Even what sounds like relatively simple things like Seperate Flares and chaff seems to be kicking their butts at the moment. And aircraft like the Tornado currently lack code relating to their slats, which also has taken them more than a year (still not implemented)
But yeah, I agree. I think the spaghetti code is reaching its limit
1 Like
Same I love stuff like this
In my experience the only two factors that matter are:
The speed of the missile (which goes hand in hand with range) and the radars quality.
R27ER is currently absolutely obliterating everything else in the SARH category. Hands down, AIM7M doesn’t even come close. Skyflash SuperTEMP may as well be the DFs compared to their competition.
Skyflash is just a super obsolete missile. AIM-7M is viable, but pitted against R27s, you almost immediately have to go defensive or risk dying before your Sparrow gets halfway to target. R27ER is essentially unstoppable unless the target notches you. Even cold, this missile obliterates, owing to its mach 5 speed, mounted on a supersonic jet, giving it at least another mach, and paired with a very servicable radar - The need for better missiles for every other nation besides Ger and USSR is glaring
1 Like
Yep, Agreed. R-27ER was an insane choice to add. Consider R-27Rs arent that far behind 7Ms and Skyflash
R-27R - 3.5M
7M- 4.0M
Skyflash ST - 4.4M
R-27ER - 5.8M (so more like mach 6 not mach 5)
Mig-29 never need such a massive BVR advantage to be competitive
1 Like
Tornado F.3 has: The worst handling at top tier. The worst range at Top Tier and the worst speed at top tier.
F.3 gets absolutely clowned on by MiG29s because it takes so long for the Tornado to effectively crank a missile. It doesnt have the gimbal limits to notch AND lock like YAK141 does, so you have to choose to:
Die by notching, dodging the missile and getting into a dogfight
Or die by BVM missile
Or go cold and die from the faster yet.
F-16C only manages to fight back well because its a superior radar and airframe.
2 Likes
R-27ER was just a bad choice for them to add. It’s an incredible tech gap that noone seems to talk about despite it being the most powerful missile in game.
3 Likes
How many vehicles in a pack are their normally? because 2 non-polish already seem like a lot.
1 Like
I mean it is great and all that Gaijin made their engine open source (not the War Thunder source code). Sometimes you have to start fresh with something that from the beginning takes future mechanics into consideration. I’m sure that addition of a new mechanic somehow under the web of code breaks something else. Then it becomes a cat and mouse game of chasing bugs (I mean all code is kinda that way). I like Bohemia Interactive’s approach of recognizing the limitations of their engine and it made more sense to build a new one from scratch in-house. They then implemented it into DayZ standalone and it was a night and day difference. Then they create and release Arma Reforger, a platform that allows BI devs to work on and iron out mechanics and features for the next Arma series as well as a platform for the Arma modding community to port their mods over to the new engine as Enforce script replaced SQF. Yet Bohemia Interactive also has contracts with the US military for their VSB (Virtual Battle Space).
Would it be too awful an idea to float about a new game engine that from the beginning accounts for current and future mechanics? Cause eventually Gaijin will run out of newer vehicles to add. Additionally it would mean a change in graphics, and might actually make turning DLSS on worth something instead of it lowering graphics quality.
I hope with the addition of rank 8 will ease some of the br compression.
I think a new version of the engien was rumoured a few weeks ago
And once you’ve gone on the defensive your AIM-7M is essentially wasted. Tornada really suffering with the skyflash, glad I didn’t research the Tornado ADV yet.
Really? All I saw was Gaijin making the base engine open source, and they didn’t even announce that. Like at all.