No, they haven’t had “4 updates” to work on dual plane simulation.
Things aren’t measured in updates.
And calling these economy updates bad? WOW! That’s some serious bait. The community is loving these changes.
@Macekeeks Different teams.
possibly but that road map seems to cover what would be most of there teams
No, but I’m not going to continue arguing about English as a native speaker. Point being is what sources do we have for that.
Man i didn’t say the changes roadmap they put up were bad the changes before that were shity(the ones that mane community go Boycot) and what i mean by 4 update or whatever the hell quantity of time they may take they had time to put complex systems but they don’t use that time properly they prefer using it for things like adding high performance Fox3 because Chinese playerbase complained day one about the fact PL11 were removed from J8F or coding proto vehicles that never existed for no effing reason.
To me they do everything in the wrong order. Before putting new systems (Fox3 for example) they should perfect and polish the ones that are already in game (Fox1 and 2 for example). They did it for SAM and Laser ATGM recently yes but after how much time? Their way of working is perfectly illogical because they prefer adding new unstable things over an unstable base instead of building a strong base and then putting new things over it.
2 Likes
Isn’t the RDY radar missing some features. Like multi target tracking?
Any news on when/if they will add more modes and features
It’s missing many feature yes but only answer we got for now is : SoonTM
We know how it works but we can’t use the sources that are available online if they are still restricted. This is the issue.
I see nobody complaining about it (anymore?) so I give a try :
Is anybody else experiencing strange behavior with Super 530F/D on both M2000CS5 & 5F ?
Not talking about the lake of speed/maneuvrability of the missile, but it seems that there is no way to keep the lock on the target when it comes near to you. So it’s more related to the radar I guess. Is it normal ? skill issue ? I tried ALL radar modes, and it’s all the same ! When the target is above +/- 2 km from me, then I lose the lock (sometimes a strange “loading” icon appears in the middle on the screen in place of the target icon).
NOTE : Most the time I play near the ground (above 500m) to avoid early game undodgeable missiles at high altitudes.
NOTE 2 : I don’t have this problem at all with the mirage F1s and super 530F, although their radars should be worse… !
Anyone else ??
mine looks like its on a rollercoaster almost did a full loop then tried to go after the enemy aircraft with 0 energy, but when ever im at super close range ive never seen it pull more aoa and keep a better track
You should try to see if keeping your nose exactly on the target allows you to keep the lock, that’s the bug I’ve been having every game for the last few months, where the radar does not tilt to follow the target after acquiring it, causing the lock to break if you don’t keep the nose exactly on them Community Bug Reporting System
What are you talking about “high performance fox 3s” will come likely next year.
MICA RF, AMRAAM C, AAM-4 [later than the rest], R-77-1, and PL-12.
And implementing ARHs helps them perfect SARHs.
They’re doing both at once. And it’s better to test features on scale than it is to rely exclusively on internal testing so you can improve systems.
IR & SARH missils on Mirage 2000 for example have went through many base changes from Gaijin refining the simulation, and will continue to do so.
Multi-target tracking isn’t in the game yet, and people don’t complain cause we know Gaijin’s working on it, and until it’s added things are balanced currently.
When it’s added, BR shifts may certainly well occur.
AMRAAM C is vague, most AMRAAM variants are “AMRAAM C”
AIM-120C-3, C-4, C-5 are not “high performance” in regards to the fact that they are analogue to the R-77 in performance and the AIM-120C-7 exceeds it… PL-12 is inferior to AIM-120C-5 generally (DCS iteration of SD-10A is essentially the improved PL-12A)…
Anyhow, I’m just being nitpicky if we want to discuss the AIM-120 and other analogous missiles we can head to my AIM-120 thread. I agree with the rest of your statement.
1 Like
You know, the insomnia I’ve been facing & am finally cured of for the time being.
I’m glad I’ve been having these conversations.
Everyone on the forum is neat, and it’s truly amazing.
Can you post a video / replay when you experience it again?
What i mean is that according to some official source Grippen C will come this year but the plane only ever carried AMRAAM and Fox 1 never were thought of regarding its armament and based on that fact and their statement on PL12 I can only immagine they will implement high perf ARH missile before the end of the year.
Based on that, i think they still implement things too fast because look we have IR and SARH missiles in the game for the moment right? But some IR missiles in the game should posess IRCCM and some other missiles should added in compensation to the arrival of other for example from the moment Python3 were added AIM9Ms and R73s should have came along IMO but i could be misled and be rushing things and the reason why the IRCCM system isn’t fully implemented in game and therefore those missiles cannot be added without risks is because they are testing the IRCCM.
But still i maintain my opinion on the fact they implement things without having a fully stable basis for example refering to my last example they should be adding/correcting IR missiles with the first types of IRCCM systems like R73, AIM9M, Magic 2 and such before adding ARH missile come to the game.
What i’m trying to say is that Gaijin tends to have too much interest in making their game progress in weapons and vehicles eras instead of completely developing and perfecting concepts that they introduced long ago which causes a lot of fixing to be made at once and therefore can be the cause of many bugs as the ones we’ve seen recently with some radars and SARH missiles. To illustrate that i’ll point the fact that some SARH missile are made dumb thanks to ground clutter while they should not for most of them, maybe it’s a purposefully implemented system in order to make the game playable idk, but you see what i mean i’d prefer seeing the MICA in three years but having almost perfectly functionning SARH and IR missile than having bugged ARH missiles in game that are just frustrating to use you see?
Gaijin won’t give the 100km ARHs to WT this year, cause they’ll want to test the lower end stuff so they have a baseline of how to balance the 100km range high perf ARHs.
Python 3s are 9L equivalent.
Python 4s are 9M equivalent.
I don’t think it’ll be that way. To me they’ll probably used the fact that MICA and R77 are very maneuverable to justify the greater range of PL12 and AIM120 as a balancing measure. I’m maybe wrong but i mean no balance can be found with ARH missiles as AIM120 early version have same range as MICA and R77 but much less maneuverability and tracking capabilities so then to balance they would add the longer range AIM120 C7 and PL12 to compensate the maneuverability difference. Idk a balance is too hard too find between ARH missiles.
Gaijin does not add fake information into missile characteristics, ever.
They use the most accurate information available at the time.
I do not talk about fake info just about the fact that a balance between Chinese and US ARH missiles that rely more on range than maneuverability and Russian and French missiles that rely more on high maneuvering but medium range is extremely hard to find. And therefore it’s not impossible that the first ARH missiles that will appear this year are PL12, AIM120C-6 or 7, MICA and R77 in order to offer every nation an ARH missile.
Because i highly doubt gaijin would allow themselve to leave one or more nation fight against advanced/new gen ARH missiles without being able to fight back with the same tech.
PL-12 and AIM-120 both possess sufficient maneuverability that dodging them is not going to be possible within any NEZ range.
The AIM-120A/B is 35G and I see no official source implying they’re less maneuverable as the C-3+ comes out, in fact they refer to the C+ models as having high-angle off-boresight capability.
Anything beyond 25G is going to be incredibly difficult to dodge and later FOX-3s will be able to maneuver in combined plane and as such would be approximately 35G.
1 Like