Please submit a report for anything you believe to be incorrect. It will then get a response from the devs if its not as intended.
Will the f16c blk52 get the AIM-120B? it kinda effect the close range combat performance to the blk52 when compared to others so i want to know this :)
good afternoon lads. anything we didnt know so far on the dev?
Someone else did a bug report and it got immediately hit with a “rate of fire is a balancing thing, not a bug” using the original numbers shown in the dev stream which were a far higher rate of fire.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SIL5JLCaMYHa
So it feels like a no win situation as a report would be locked and ignored as it is balancing, not a bug.
1 Like
Again it isn’t a PoBIT….
It predates PoBIT. Completely different program…
We had AESA in 2020 on these aircraft….
SABR was tested and implemented on the SEAD squadron’s 16’s first which I explained to you once before :(
You literally posted an image from 2020 of the exact airframe in a PoBIT thread :(
That’s the problem with “selective realism” which also often collides with “engine doesn’t support that” and “feature not implemented yet”.
BIAS
Is the falcon radar still coming this update?
Its currently not on the dev server
cool thing is that it gets full on irst with ranging. so the lead modes work too.
Its still under review. There was since some conflicting information submitted on it.
Thank you very much, now for some slight hostility.
How in the world did Gaijin butcher this so bad? It uses the EXACT SAME TURRET (with the exception of a different variant of the same gun) as the VBCI-2 (MTC30), yet it is missing the tracking, and LWS found ON THE DAMN VBCI-2 (MTC30). How is the is even possible? Same goes for the airburst round.
The airburst is already present on the Type 24 and 25 in the Japanese tree, which use the Bushmaster Mk44, yet every other Mk44 lacks this munition. Here is a CLEAR VIDEO of the MCT30 turret firing Mk310 Airburst munitions.
Finally, how the hell does it not have spall liners? The M1128 has had a bug report sat as accepted for a year, regarding missing spall liners. There are plenty of documents online stating that the Stryker chassis is equipped with spall liners. Funnily enough as well, the M1296 Dragoon uses the EXACT SAME hull as the M1128, except it has upgraded suspension and wider tires for the MCT30. This would have been A GREAT opportunity to fix the M1128 missing its spall liners, but noooo.
So if it doesn’t get a radar it will get a BR reduction right?
2 Likes
They said they wanted to add AIM-120D to boost US performance at top tier. They likely/hopefully also knew this F-16C would be mediocre regardless.
So it makes sense that these 2 planes also got 120Ds.
The radar was not considered to be added instead of a BR decrease.
Well you will be pleasantly suprised when you see how the Leclerc was absolutely wrecked by the addition of detailed modules and turret basket lol.
I think this might be the biggest nerf any top tier MBT has gotten from these things.
No radar, no br reduction… whats next, a br increase to 8.7 because the apds was not the issue lol?
1 Like
Speaking of BR’s, why does the Dragoon sit at the same BR as the VBCI-2 (MTC30), despite lacking LWS and tracking? Is the Dragoon supposed to have these features on the dev server, given that it uses the same turret as the VBCI, or is this intended by design? Also, are there an plans to add the airburst round to the Dragoon?