Both sides may have different claims, but I didn’t know they shot down Mirage.
Will the management adjust the impact of the multi-pass?
I think adding AAM-4B and adjusting the impact of multipath would improve realism and make the game more tactical and better.
Remember that most people need to play few battles without chaff. Imagine this without ANY protection from Fox3. It’s gonna be terrible grind. Also, at SARH BR multipathing is the only real defense, because notch can be random, and most planes have very limited amount of CMs.
I do run separate but I noted that out of anything I run out of flares more but that’s just due to my playstyle. With the F-2 I was thinking 50/70 or even just even 60/60 just to have more flares for pre-flaring and enough chaff to comfortably deal with a few ARH missiles when focused at any point
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
If you’re talking about that 150 plane dogfight… that was fake news
Did you really compared IRL modern ARH fight with in-game SARH fight? This comparison is completely wrong. Just don’t do it again.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
In game limitations also might be because of maximum render range of surface targets or again just because it is dev
It actually is
Now that dev is closed, and the report is not acknowledged, I’m thinking I want to nudge the issue regarding the incorrect camo colour to a tech-mod. Anyone know which one would care enough to help out?
Link to issue (Community Bug Reporting System)
Yes, the number of DLs was reduced to 2 by MRIU of 2EA.
This is because this document is an “F-2A/B Capability Improvement Modification (Air-to-Air Capability)” and is used for the MRM data link.
By the way, why are there six SIUs even though this is a modification for the AAM-4 and there are only four launchers? That’s contradictory lol.
- We don’t know how many DL channels each unit provides, this is essentially why this report was closed in the beggining
- Eou still yet to prove that wet pylons cannot be used to launch ASMs even tho all the markings and connections are present
2 Likes
1.So there is no basis for it to be reduced. But…?
2.The connections are not evidence. The markings do not necessarily correspond to the actual wiring. There is no evidence that this is possible, so if you want to allow it, then allow 6 MRM. If not, we follow the rationale and get 4 MRM/4 ASM/2DL.
-
I have no idea why devs suddenly reopened closed report and accepted it, maybe they got additional info from their sources, you need to ask somebody from moderation team about it, @WreckingAres283 might have more information about it
-
There are no evidence there are connections for MRM launcher rail while ASM mounted to pylon directly without any additional equipment, with all photos we have there nothing that would suggest otherwise. So, yeah, 4 MRM/ 6 ASM seems to be correct. It is not used IRL right now because then range would drop too much and it is generally more of a concern over number of missiles, but I bet if there would be some HVT like carrier or landing force close enough they would use 6 missiles per plane…
Plus it is not like it makes it any better considering applications of ASMs in war thunder are extremely limited and their effectivenes is really not great even in a single thing they can be used. If there would be good evidence that wet pylons not suppose to carry ASMs I personally have no problem with 4xASM load.
4 Likes
There is no justification for there to be any connecting wiring to the ASM, as the pylons are common, allowing the MRM launcher to be fitted to the fuel pylon.
I have no clue what you tried to say with this one
The fact that it can be installed without additional equipment is not evidence that it can actually be used.The “installation” of ASM and MRM can be done on their pylons, including the fuel pylons. You are correct that to “operate” them you need actual wiring. What is the rationale for wiring for ASM?
Going back to the topic, based on the rationale for cutting DL channels, 4/4 or 6/6 would be logical.
Number of datalink channels has nothing to do with wiring on pylons. There are marks for connections of ASM on wet pylons, it doesn’t even makes sense to make connection but not make wiring for it as connection points are making pylons heavier and if something is not intended to be shooted from it pylon wouldn’t have connections for it. But in the same time there are no proof there are connection for MRM launchers. I personally assume that if there are marked connections for installing weapon system than there are wiring for it because that is how military engineering works, you need to design systems that can be reliably operated by a bunch 20 year olds in potentially very high stress conditions and with very limited time. If marking says X goes here, it does and it will work like you it or not.
Rational for cutting DL channels is a misunderstanding of the source or information that gaijin got in other place and they just reopened existing report that was referring to the same topic, again, on this you should go to technical/ suggestion mods and ask them directly as I don’t have access to Gaijin internal report system
For me personally it doesn’t really matter would it have 2 DL channels and 4 MRM/ ASM or 10 DL + HMD + AAM-4 on every wing pylon as long as there are source for it
1 Like
Please read on. I’m not saying the number of DLs matters, but the rationale used for it.
In other words, there is no marking of a usable GBU, so the GBU is totally unusable :)
Looks pretty usable to me, GBU-54 is exactly the same as GBU-38 in terms of connections as it is essentially same bomb. As for double smart pylons I don’t know if JASDF has them or not, but I assume they do
3 Likes