Are the devs considering to add the Aim-120C to match the R-77-1’s range capablities?
I pulled a positive KD with the SK-60 when it was 37k SL to repair at 7.7 air when the Su-11 was 7.0 and better in everyway. Ill manage with these horrific dumpsterfire just like the rest of the tree.
2 Likes
The problem with that logic is, if nobody plays it then it doesn’t change. There are like 7 swedish air players they don’t have the numbers to impact the BR’s
1 Like
Honestly I cant believe my eyes.
I disagree…the Hornet is very good in close, it’s just that most people have no clue how to use the AoA limiter switch! I find in the merge people are not staying close enough to not get hit by HOBS missiles…but that’s a trick question when it comes to the Su30 because the R73 in to close will not go for flairs…get just 1.0km 1000 meters separation on to fast of a merge and you get a R77…this will be made CRAZIER by the IIR missiles in the future!
As a Flanker Cultist I’m very happy with the Su30 ;) and this is in it’s toned down state from the very first dev server…with the AL-41s on the SM2 or Su35S…good Lord!
3 Likes
HMS looks pretty nice for 9M launch after turn
1 Like
So uh @Smin1080p_WT tomorrow ends the dev server right? On the update day is it possible for more vehicles to appear?
I honestly did not think that 9M would hit XD
Idk, i figured it would, it was a decent launch. Not great but decent.
Spikes are just hot garbage right now
Been hot garbage
Welp im gonna get drunk, finally home after being away for a few days and pretend this update doesn’t exist. Any and all complaints can be sent to the paper shredder where i will force my assistant to put them back together for me to read.
2 Likes
Spikes are hella strange. I have more luck killing from front rather than from side.
If I shoot at their front, it usually goes thro driver view port blowing up ammo, but when from side it just hits some machine gun and USSR magic armour just ignores the rest.
atleast rng was abit in its favour … now it feels like some game’s alpha-phase’s half-implemented buggy calculation
The first radar ever mounted to any XF-2 was J/APG-1 on the 4th prototype. AN/APG-68 was bought and planned in case the domestic radar wouldn’t be ready in time, but that wasn’t needed.
Still, an explanation would be nice why a vehicle that from various QnA’s and devblogs in the past 2+ years we know that Gaijin is actively aware of, is being added so late.
They used the “too advanced” approach a lot, but we are not only already way past initial service models with SARH missiles, but even late service aircraft are outclassed in seemingly every way now, even assuming Gaijin adds unique flight model properties like ME and DY modes (they probably won’t).
I fail to see how they will add it as a top tier anymore since it isn’t coming this update… And anything below top tier would be even more of a punch in the gut than missing the early F-2s already was.
4 Likes
So lets call a spade a spade, gaijin’s plans included giving the Swedish tree an F-18 , but compared to the Americans, knew it was gimped upon introduction. Knowing it has no HMD, ground ordinance or different missile kit to make up for no HMD and still believes it should be 14.0 .
All while gaslighting the player base into waiting for another variant addition to grind RP for, most likely just to be dead on arrival compared to other additions in said update, just like this current F-18
How do you view this as excusable? If this was the other way around, Americans getting the gimped model, there would be enough out cry to make a change. PW-229 on American F-15E ring any bells???
It’s really disappointing to see the dev team try to die on these hills for no good reason.
12 Likes
I am confused on what you are disagreeing about?
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Besides the… controversy regarding BOL on the T.10.
Able to comment on anything else being actively worked on for the Harriers:
- EEGS for the FRS1
- Sooty exhaust removal
- GPS guided bombs for T.10/GR7
- Phimat pods for GR3/GR7
- IR Signature reduction/normalisation
2 Likes
Report is open for this.
Report also open for this.
Dont see any currently open reports for either on this.
Suggestions open for both.
Devs have said temps and thrust mapping will be updated according manuals. However no eta.
4 Likes
Gunjob nudged the devs about it in Firebirds, so I guess it was done unofficially .
IR signatures from what I understand have nothing to do with engine temps. But rather the thrust the engine produces:
With the thrust being increased rather notably in the coming major update and the already probelmatic nature of effective flaring in an Harrier (even ones with usable CM counts) the concern is that the situation in the next major update is becoming absolutely untennable, and no amount of flares would actually help.
With the introduction of the F-117 and its “IR Signature reduction” code that maybe a solution is now possible for the Harriers and similar code can be applied to bring the thermal signature in-line with existing airframes.
I would attempt a bug report for this, including this suggestion, but I have such a tenative grasp on what “thrust to flare ratio” is, that I would have no idea where to begin.
3 Likes