I mean, i will use it, probably, but is it an upgrade worth 400k RP ? Sure, in SIM the new features are great, but in the end, you still get a 2000D-R1 with few upgrades and 1 more gbu (?). I didn’t try it on the dev. While it will probably get the Mica IR and AASM, they are not in the game right now. Isn’t the 2000 5f just better for ground ?
what does this mean? is it increased or decreased? Thanks
It gets Laser/gps bombs, instead of normal laser bombs, the egbu’s 48, 49, and 50, and if you want a gun, you still get 4 gbu’s, with a gun, instead of three.
it has a2g radar, instead of a a2a radar, and im 99% sure it will have tgp slaving on live, it was internally reported.
Isn’t the 2000 5f just better for ground ?
for pure a2g, the m2kD RMV will be better, but for multirole, m2k5f will be better
and let me remind you, 5f is supposed to have 0 guided munitions, only the 5f mk.2 became a true multirole, france used 5f only for a2a and d’s for a2g.
A couple of things I noticed on the F-15E on the most recent dev,
- the conforming fuel tanks do not provide additional fuel.
- (unsure if intentional) We can no longer carry the additional double 120Bs and targeting pod at the same time.
Edit. Apparently its the conforming fuel tanks in general, not just the ones with 120Bs
Reposting this from the last change log, as the devs never issued a response and the item is still listed in the change log, despite said comment being very well liked by the naval-playing community, such as it is:
The position of the binocular camera has been reworked. The camera has been moved to the center of the ship along its length and width. The height of the binoculars now depends on the maximum height of the vehicle: the higher the superstructure and masts, the higher the location of the camera.
Please please please please please do not do this. Do not change this. No one who plays naval was asking for this. We LIKE being able to be placed at the BRIDGE of the ship with the camera, in a position where we actually see from where the captain would be. We LIKE being placed in a way that gives us a solid idea of how our ship is actually maneuvering and turning. Placing it in the middle does nothing but harm the ability to see the sway and turn of the ship’s bow and eliminates a nice, enjoyable feature from the game. Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?
6 Likes
Is there a reason for the Su-34’s radar being nerfed twice?
(Total thanks for the flatspin ‘fix’ though, much appreciated :D)
America suffer
1 Like
Decrease
MiG-23 (ML) flight model, radar? In the bin
MiG-29 flight model? BUTCHERED. MiG-29M pls gaijingles.
Su-27 flight model? B U T C H E R E D. But at least we get 2 extra missiles on its younger (newer?) brother the Su-27SM amirite
Su-34 gets an OP GPS rocket-assisted glide bomb? BU- okay now I actually am behind the removal of the Grom-1 because there was literally no equivalent to any of the other nations to compete against it (yet, JASSM/JSOW when Gaijingles) and - like clockwork - the US mains would line up and eventually cry about it until it got removed anyway. Anyways, enough waffle and back on track: Su-34 radar gets downgraded twice (scan speed, elevation scan)? B U T C H E R E D, blyat.
4 Likes
I’m not sure it will help. Speed bleed will be huge.
Su24’s radar nerfed to the ground?
I wouldn’t say to the ground but it behaves less like a PESA and more like a PESA-lite. The detection is still good, faster than the ‘normal’ mechanical radars but it’s slower than what it was. Scan speed should be similar or around the Pantsir’s but it’s a little bit slower.
1 Like
I’m just mad that Gaijin is nerfing Q-5 flight performance on dev. Q-5s totally needed a nerf /s.
I think it’s a decrease but only at low speed and low altitude. So just a little longer taking off. (But don’t quote me on that)
Playing around on the GR4 on the dev server, it felt fine. Considering my normal experience in the GR1, it felt way better than what I’m use to.
Looking through the data mines I could only find this reference to it (but could have missed others)
- A-200A (“Italian IDS-Tornado”), A-200A (1995) (“Italian IDS-Tornado (1995)”), IDS-Tornado [DEU], IDS-Tornado (Marineflieger), IDS-Tornado (WTD 61):
- engine adjustments:
- base thrust (before calculation) decreased from 4150 kgf to 4128 kgf
- decreased afterburning thrust (per engine) at 0 km/h TAS, 0 m altitude from 6630 kgf to 6446 kgf
- decreased 110% throttle thrust multiplier from 1.32 to 1.31
- overall about 3% thrust loss per engine
1 Like
@Stona_WT The new settings for AA do not work at all. I already made a topic about them, they are all super blurry and look terrible compared to live server. And I cant use TAA and SSAA like I am on live when on dev. Is this a known issue? Because I truly cannot play like this if the blur and pilxelated trees persist… bush decorators look like playdough but real trees are super pixelated and the landscape is blurry if you want to check my topic for more detail.
I can’t make a new topic for this, so I will ask here. It the queue broken on the dev server for anyone else? I have not been able to enter a battle for about an hour now, and my queue time for air RB is at 8 minutes currently. My dev server is updated to current version.
Maybe you have wrong servers picked idk
Dev server is now closed.
12 Likes
Dont forget to fix issues with newly added JA37’s
2 Likes
Hopefully they do since they’ve all been accepted.
Just wish the HUD reports for other aircraft would get accepted or something. There’s so many HUD reports that are just completely ignored for months/years.
2 Likes