They already closed one for datalink channels :)
That one im fine with, technically nothing explicitly says 1 MRIU per DL channel, don’t remember a source for it atleast… I’d really like it if they stopped closing issues though, it feels like they’re actively resisting any changes based on historical accuracy.
1 Like
I mean, for things like that there is tag “response needed”. I do agree that 1 MRUI might have more than one channel but it is not the reason to conpletely close the issue and just disregard pretty improtant piece of technical documentation
1 Like
Bugreport about incorrect modeling. Used these photos as proofs
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WcgINTT7okZO
5 Likes
It’s meaningless. The official specification of the F-2 is 4 ASM, And if it’s not a service loadout, there’s no reason to buy it.
Next, check the number of connectors procured for ASM.
There are 6.
1 Like
The store is simply a pylon, What is the reason why it is only ASM? Please do not slide the goal post. If it is not actually used, ASM is invalid.
Show the original document.
Apparently EFT is being considered for AIM-120C, as per Smin. I wonder if then we should suggest AAM-4 unnerfing as well as upping the BR of F-15J(M) and F-2, if necessary
4 Likes
ASMs are mounted directly to the pylon, via the 24 inch attachment point on the universal rail connector, they do not need an additional adaptor pylons such as MRMs do. As such SIUs are the closest i can provide, proving that the connectors are wired for weapons.
3 Likes
All it shows is that there are six pylon interfaces, not actual wiring. It is not a proof of six ASMs or four MRMs.
Yes, the MRM requires additional rails.
As it says, the launcher does not mean there is evidentiary power in the purchase schedule.
I did and bug report mods denied it. I might do it again but they’re really pissing me off.
11 Likes
We can’t proof, nor deny existence of wiring, at least with documents we have. There is no reason we should pursue lowering amount of ASMs availible, at least right now.
3 Likes
Inconsistent non-historical equipment should be rejected. Next Turn to the actual structure of GBU/TER.
There are literal images of it mounting TERs on the inner most pylons. They’re like, the one thing we have actual evidence of having been mounted on them.
4 Likes
Motor fuel mass got passed, so now all 3 of my initial AAM-4 bug reports are accepted.
Hopefully we’ll see some in game, just in time for me to throw some more at them.
19 Likes
Hello, I’m currently trying to write a report about the flaperons clipping into the pylons on STA 3 and STA 9.
Looking closely in game, the pylons on STA 3 and STA 9 are not symmetrical, causing the clipping on STA 3 to be much more apparent.
Spoiler
I am unsure what the solution to this would be, since moving STA 3/9 outwards, out of the way of the flaperons may cause issues;
A: Being too close to STA 2/10 (AAM-3)
B: Pylon mounting intersects with the leading-edge flap and causes clipping with leading-edge flap
It is also possible that the pylons themselves are incorrectly modeled.
If anyone has high quality reference photos that show the correct mounting points for STA 3/9, that will greatly help resolve this issue.
*Minor issue: Some pylons are “floating” underneath the wings
Spoiler
For now I will just post the report just to bring it to the attention of the developers.
2 Likes
4 days ago:
4 Likes
Is there any chance of 6+4?
They mounting pylon itself is simply positioned and scaled wrong.
Two things, firstly, the pylons are slightly too far back, secondly, the pylons (and adapter rails), are scaled too large up. IRL the adapter rail only goes half way up the guidence section of the AAM-4, while in game it heads half way up the guidance section access point, which is in front of it.
The pylons and adapter rails can be told to be at the same scale as each other by the back end of the MRM rail lining up with the 5th bolt on the main pylon.
4 Likes