because part of the job of the CMs is to do that for them
you cant expect all the devs to keep up to date with the forums, its basically a full time job
2 Likes
so today dev stream?
1 Like
It’s not that big of an issue, the aircraft will probably just go to Italy
huh I wonder if gaijin will rework how ASM or missiles interact with ships otherwise I doubt ASM will do a whole lot against BBs and BCs
for example the Sovremenny class only have 8 Moskits which are meant to be really strong but only have 150kg of HE mass, so maybe they will implement actual armour pen to missiles
11 Likes
so the rack is real. If you have proof it outright isnt compatible with su30 or su27sm then make a bug report, because I dont see any reason why it wouldnt be
Guess im watching it on the ride home again ;-;
3 Likes
There’s a difference between technical capabilities of the aircraft and whether it needs such missiles for balance reasons. There’s always a risk of raising BR to a point where it becomes uncompetitive.
I’m not a game designer and don’t decide such things. As of now, it has the same loadout as B.
1 Like
The proof for it being compatible on Su-30 was a Su-30 not even using it
How can you prove something that never existed in the first place
Ru stream if anyone is interested (1 hour later):
https://www.youtube.com/live/7LBDvSJRaZc?si=2PHTMbKSo91vSf8D
I don’t think 13.3 with AIM-7Ps and AIM-9Ms would make it not competitive (ignoring how the F-14B was already over BR and should of had AIM-9Ms anyway)
1 Like
The twin pylon was meant for the SU-35 not the SU-30/27SM, there has not been one proof of those carrying it, the first picture is the proof they claim it can when its clearly single pylon.
1 Like
there are still countries using outdated equipment all over the world, its kinda standard in military to not always use the best stuff, once again there isnt really any reason the su30 couldnt use it
i mean most standard non-wartime patrols use minimal weaponry
this right here is why I hate how gaijin implement buffs we see zero of the proof they exist while if we want to actually change it now need to find a document that specifically states they aren’t real, which is hard to do when if something doesn’t exist it rarely comes up in documents. The closest we could get is a document on the twin racks stating what aircraft they can be mounted on and assuming anything not mentioned wouldn’t be compatible
1 Like
This is designed solely for Russian vehicles/tech trees; it doesn’t align with the us tech tree.u kown wm3
So don’t call it an F-14D then if it’s literally just an F-14B just with the radar of the F-14D.
At this point give it the F-14B’s radar and rename it F-14B(U) since that’s essentially what it is.
4 Likes
You’re free to make suggestions in the BR changes announcement thread when it will come after major update release.
But this is the Russian air force you saying they are too poor for the Su-30 but not the Su-35
1 Like
the reason as i recall was “SAME SPACE BETWEEN THE ENGINES”
Of course, but that’s still not the point. It was shown on the Russian SU-35, not on anyone elses. It was never shown on the SU-30SM at all. That first picture is a SU-30SM am i wrong?