M8 they confirmed AMRAAMS at least ether this update or the next.
And they said that they couldn’t put 9L on the RAF Phantom because it will have to go up a rank.
This is why I think planes with AMRAAMS will go up a rank.
5 Likes
DCS hours on weapon systems. “But this isn’t DCS!”
Yes… it isn’t DCS, and both projects by separate devs are both working their hardest to simulate the physics and tracking of weapon systems to be as accurate as possible.
Lot of AMRAAM & R-77 practice since that’s the best thing you can do without VR.
Translating that to War Thunder’s far easier observation capability with third person & predictable lines enemy players will take.
I’m ready.
@Deathmisser
If rank 8 was for all gen 3.5s then all would be in rank 8, but they aren’t.
So don’t read too much into it since we’re not even at gen 4.5 yet.
1 Like
Very off topic, read if you want.
The policy is and was always “Don’t use nation A’s estimates or analysis of nation B’s equipment.”
Gaijin saying “We know in great detail how Igla works, we have no evidence why Stinger/Mistral should aerodynamically be so different, here’s our working model and assumption.” clearly isn’t the same.
They showed flight envelopes for how Igla works
Because of this feature, when analyzing the maneuvering capabilities of MANPADS missiles, we rely not only on the maximum overload indicated in the documents, but also on the weapon engagement zones and conduct a comparative analysis of missiles by mass and area of aerodynamic surfaces. For MANPADS missiles, we reliably know the maneuvering capabilities of the 9M39 with available overload of 10.2G, which is confirmed not only by the overload in technical documentation, but also by the size of the engagement and kill zones of maneuvering targets.
that’s a lot more detail than just “maneuvering target 9G” or “pulls 20g” which, to my knowledge, amount to the strongest evidence for Mistral and Stinger buffs posted in the thread.
They explained this as being a mechanical limitation of the engine.
Within the game, due to technical limitations, even in the case of single-channel relay control, we use two-channel proportional control of missiles. Therefore, the maximum overload for the autopilot of MANPADS missiles in the game was set to the average overload of a real missile over a half-period of rotation.
I agree they should probably tweak the G values some more, I don’t think these missiles should be assumed to constantly pull whichever G is written on their marketing placard or whatever.
So you really think they were only going to do it for T-90M and then mysteriously in the blink of an eye responded to backlash by putting a bunch of spall liners in (as if they had already made them earlier but just not shown them, or they weren’t yet ready)
All that you have said, vindicated my observation.
I won’t respond further here since it’s off topic for this thread.
My most profound apologies for having failed you. How should my card look so I don’t get dismissed?
1 Like
Did you stop for a second and think that by “rank” they meant “battle rating”?
Ranks (like 1, 2 and 3 and so on) are more or less gimmicks, it’s BR that matters
Oh boy, I love drop tanks :D
7 Likes
Hey now, it’s no gimmick
It’s a tool to cuck grinding progress ;P
1 Like
Hope to see the dual wing heavy drop tank on Mirage2000s, they look naked without them to me :D
3 Likes
I honestly wonder how it would look if someone made a graph which had vehicle adoption date as verticle and horizontal being real time since the game launched.
Imagine gaijin adding a new tech not being lock to oblivion in some way hehe
3 Likes
Hoping for similar on Phantoms
Naval Phantoms are at big disadvantage because you can choose EITHER gun pod or drop tank
Smaller wing tanks would allow carriage of gun pod and at same time having more fuel
2 Likes
It’s just a coincidence that generally the people who play basically only USSR, are the ones who claim there is no Russian bias in game.
“We have good evidence for how this Russian missile works. So we’re going to use that as the basis for all MANPADS, because as far as we can tell they look the same.”
The only policy GJN have ever stuck to, is that they make the rules up as they go along to justify whatever their decision is.
You quoted them talking about weapon engagement zones - but currently the western MANPADS in game are all massively underperforming in terms of engagement parameters. In fact because they are faster and GJN has artificially gimped the g load, they actually have a worse engagement zone than the Igla in game. Truly amazing work!
It’s funny how things are game engine limits when they wouldn’t benefit Russian vehicles. Like how all tanks in game are turning like ww2 tractors, when in reality NATO tanks have had much more complex transmission systems for decades.
1 Like
True! Just saying it existed and is certainly as viable as the whole commonwealth republics (like India) becoming donors for the British when needed.
And all the players that claim there is no bias of any tech tree play all 10 tech trees.
But that’s beside the point of this topic.
Here’s a rumor: There will still be no bias next major update.
2 Likes
I guess it’s an argument, but I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.
Personally I’m not a huge fan of the “Commonwealth” argument either, but that’s just me maybe.
1 Like
i like it but i exclude India
I mean C would fill the EF2000 gap better than some B variant they trailed
For me I’m ok with it at long it doesn’t overshadow a domestic vehicle that could suit X role.
Since we have no other naval fighters the CF-18 is the best option than say the Indian Mig-29.
2 Likes
Aye, that is my main gripe too.
Personally I like to exclude ZA too, as ZA is a very potent nation that could stand on it’s own, but I guess there is more validity behind that claim than India.
#'me too
3 Likes
I think they meant “rank” as “BR” but idk