Fake…
1 Like
Well, we haven’t seen all yet
These are probably just the consequences from that time they almost put most of ASEAN to China instead. With only Thailand they probably had to grab what they can get, which means a lot of C&P like the F-5A and weird choices like the “late” harrier to split one plane that was never modified and always carried the same weapons into two.
Now they either delay it and release a more interesting proper subtree, or release it as is in an underwhelming state with all other ASEAN founders besides Thailand limited to unlockable camos for the time being.
3 Likes
I know I was joking, So what the difference between the FCU and SCU ?
1 Like
I wonder if we will see that with more premiums in the future or if it will remain just a unique case for the Viggen.
Instead of paywalling aircraft, just adding a premium version in addition to the TT would fix quite a few issues.
It’s true that was the given reason, but it’s also since been disproven. Even back then was only based on the technicality that it’s called an anti ship bomb and “it doesn’t explicitly state it can target tanks”, not any real evidence.
2 Likes
its fine since italy, germany, the uk and france all use the Meteor which is either on par or better
1 Like
Sweden too
forgot about them but yep them as well
It’s also WAY better than Aim-120D.
Its why the US are rushing to develop Aim-260 because they are massively behind the curve withwise of ARH missiles at the moment.
1 Like
oh fair also didnt realise the meteor has a no escape zone of 60km jesus
1 Like
Id love an F5 with HMD
2 Likes
So with Python 4 not being a thing I guess there not really that much of a difference which suggest it being tech tree
They’ve never responded to claims that GCS-1 has greater seeker performance past the linked post, so there 's no indication that they’ve moved from their position. So, there 's no reason to believe that the devs have, or will, change their stance and allow ground-attack use for it.
Plus, they added their " F-16AJ Blk 15 " on a special exemption in the time since, for the specific purpose of gapfilling the JPN techtree an FnF weapon carrier - they’re not unaware of what planes in the techtree can carry GCS-1, so that decision must have been borne of continued denial for it to attack ground targets.
The HMD will be more then enough of a difference
2 Likes
Not saying the devs accepted it, just that they were wrong.
Then again, even if they’d know it targets ground vehicles, they’d also know it has no IFF and selects the target autonomously 4s after the drop. This basically makes it a teamkill gambling machine, even if you should be able to somewhat aim using CCIP at closer ranges.
Even without Python 4 that would still allow for AIM-9L/M with HMD
2 Likes
Out of all the fixes and changes I want to see from next major update. This is the top of my list:
This is driivng me absolutely nuts. Why does Tpods STILL use altitude for the distance unit.
But that 's necessary for understanding what happened up to this point, and that understanding is required to predict what can happen in future. It 's only when the devs decide to put things in the game that they actually make it to the game, after all. And the same in reverse.
Putting additional qualifiers on that only produces a distorted picture of the situation, which isn’t useful
for making valid inference. Like shay 's erroneous belief that subtrees require their own techtree lines.
Yeah, but seeing it constantly thrown around that GCS-1 somehow “can’t see tanks” also produces a distorted picture that many just accept and believe.
It’s far from a convenient anti tank weapon, but it still is an anti ship weapon that can target tanks, even if that brings its own issues. Sure, it wasn’t added because the devs believe it just can’t see tanks, but that is still untrue and shouldn’t just be said like it is.
1 Like