Yeah, the issue here usually is cases like the F-15J, where Gaijin adds a vehicle with a weapon removed that by their own standards could be there, but it’s missing in game.
Then reporting any missing weapon is a suggestion, not a bug, so even well made reports with proper sources about compatibility or even proof it was used in service by a nation sit around long periods of time even before being passed. And that is assuming the “suggestion” isn’t just rejected by the devs.
Meanwhile for others it’s simply there from the start. Sometimes single vehicles have wildly varying ways of implemented armament like the F-15J as best example. The 9M is added because the F-15 is compatible, the 7F not because it’s redundant, and the GBU-8 excluded because Japan didn’t use it. It’s this inconsistency that I think is wrong.
Completely unrelated from what weapons I’d personally like to see implemented or not, the current system is not working unless Gaijin finally set some clear rules.
This is false, several WWII props have modifications which swap their fuel type. What it is is that in the configuration for each plane, they don’t actually have individual fuel types,with fuel just being represented as a mass. Considering that basically the only noticable changes in game for the fuel types would be the density, i think its very reasonablr to expect gaijin to lower it to be historically accurate. Again, japan literally didnt use JP-8 with the F-15J we have in game, nore could they have as they didnt have it in service yet.
Besides the too high G-load (ignoring AoA adjustments), incorrectly configured lead-autopilot and engine config, the current AAM-4 is (from an overall viewpoint) not too far from its IRL counterpart - AAM-4B is closer to AIM-120C-5.
Um, isn’t the point of this place to be able to discuss both big and small things? Well, if it’s something not worth discussing, using GE, or something that is not a priority or relevant to many players, that’s fine. Because I myself have already finished my research and got it.
I just hope they don’t add the AIM-9M to the F-2.
Yea but thats smth rather global in-game as we don’t have datalinks in any form yet.
But yes, its special Datalink makes it stand out of early and most late ARH missiles.
That is dictated by manual not use, and it doesn’t change fuel mass or fuel, it just increases power by an amount. On top of being props not jets, thus is moving the goalposts to false equivalence.
I get being addicted to details, cause I am as well; this won’t positively impact the F-15J in War Thunder if you’re thinking it will.
Except the new guidance logic, I was able to reproduce the rough new stats in a user config of the AAM-4 and test it with current live version. Ignoring the new autopilot (which would not matter a lot in a head-on, where a target flies straight ahead without changes in speed, altitude and angle), both were basically identical in time to target (3-5 seconds difference) - it may be more differnt against manouvering targets, but we don’t expect too much of an improvement.
Ive been trying to roughly.get numbers that will work for the autopilot. The game has functions for PID values to change over time, thanks to that, and by controling other values like target velocity, i could roughly equate the guidence logic for specific scenerios for testing.
