Oxy confirmed it will be a low tier vehicle, so I suspect something Rank IV or lower
Feels actively deliberate at this point. Some nations they just refuse to give decent SPAA options at particular BRs, e.g. Not moving the Falcon down to give a 7.0-8.0 SPAA, instead giving it a radar and leaving it at the same BR as another radar SPAAG.
UK 10.3 -> 11.3 SAMs
They mostly just need to give the Stormer it’s LMMs already, it’s main issue is no proxy, so uh give it the service used proxy missile?!?!
Type 93 -> Type 81 (C) gap
Just add the Indonesian RapidRanger at 10.0 already aaaaa
AMX-10P -> AMX-30 DCA gap
It’s not like there isn’t options too (AMX 13 DCA prototype without radar, VAB/TA-20, and more)
1 Like
Nah not copy paste, gaijin does not have the money to pay for 3rd party model. Coz you know gaijin is indie developer
true.
and its not like they dont have ideas to any spaas they can add, they have a whole suggestion page for each with all of the relevant info for every nation.
im waiting for a vehicle like the japanese type 93 to come in 9.3-9.7 for us tech tree. we have humvee assets already and other nations get stingers but … ah well…
1 Like
I only wish for its digital HMD and wide HUD…they could even keep the same PL12…gaijin having problems modeling those Chinese top tier…
I’ll be focusing on the Hungarian stuff mainly especially the domestic stuff
3 Likes
Honestly sort of depends if it has 48cm or not.
Hello
All missile performance in game is based on source material. Nothing is “buffed” or “nerfed” on the whims of balance. Its a case of source material showing clearly something can do X or Y.
Regarding open reports, so long as the matter is still open, that means it has not yet been rejected by the devs. Usually this is down to 2 main reasons: 1) The source material is trying to be confirmed (assuming it conflicts with what is already known and understood) or 2) it is scheduled for a wider rework of the missile(s) in terms of physics, performance or a general updating of missiles across the board (such as the above mentioned drag rework for context).
8 Likes
Cough Brimstone Cough
16 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT while you are here could you forward this?
Seeing as we get now another Tank with this gun
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/mTcQL9rjtGow
1 Like
probably going to see this in a MatAWG video
2 Likes
Is there any way the devs can share information on this? What source material do they have that shows that AIM-120s perform the way they do in game?
At least from an outsider perspective it would seem that AIM-120s have a similar form factor to say the AAM-4 and PL-12, both of which are capable of pulling a fair amount of Gs in HOBS situations. Yes, they have smaller fins, so it would still be worse. But I question why the difference is THIS dramatic.
1 Like
How do you explain the Kh-38? What sources indicate that the R-77-1 twin pylon can be used on aircraft other than the Su-35?
Addendum: kh38MT, not ML
cant wait for aam4s, pl-12s, aim-120s and r-77s be buffed all at the same time surely
The question was regarding missile performance. Not operating mode.
The performance of Brimstone SAL is correct. Simply its additonal modes have not been added for previously explained game balance reasons. This is different entirely to what was being asked.
2 Likes
Oh boy, top tier will be even more fun!
/s
still wild that brimstone 1 cant even get near its stated max range due to how gaijin has modelled it, either way the brimstones were replaced as the primary CAS of the EFTs by SPICE-250s still hope we might see brimstone 2s so they are a bit faster and can actually reach past 12-14km
Im referring to previous instances where this was the case, as with the aforementioned guidance changes. Not a future or upcoming rebalance.
Just so this isn’t spun out as something its not.
2 Likes