I mean RAM and conformal bay is close enough for WT. Did it have AESA?
Unsure, it depends on if the F-15E they used for it was upgraded or not. They used F-15E 86-0183 which was actually the first production F-15E built for the tests.
I did try and make a suggestion for the SE a while ago and it got shot down as it was just F-15E1 planned be dammed but I just literally just remake that suggestion into F-15E1 with the CWB and RAM so hopefully that gets approved.
1 Like
Hey. It seems you misunderstood.
To clarify, I was answering the user above who claimed:
I was explaining to them the importance of why steps to reproduce (even at a basic level) are important. And also why saying “just play the game”, is not helpful for those who need to test and replicate the bug to be able to pass it to the devs
You included the steps in your report, which I reformatted to use as the example I provided:
This is all thats required generally. Nobody claimed your report (the second one) did not inlcude steps to reproduce.
The report has been forwarded.
1 Like
I’d love the LAV family. Even more so the UK getting getting some do to how many Commonwealth nation used them(at it being domestic to one of them), major ones at that.
The earlier LAVs might not be the greatest (I still want them) but the LAV-6 MK II is looking at have missiles so should be ok.
Understood, appreciate the response.
How aware are the devs regarding the current state of 9Ms?
My report for front aspect IRCCM got accepted and of course all of Flame’s reports (still dont know why they havent been actioned) but this report still needs forwarding:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/bT0XeTXyaQ3X
but the IRCCM appears to have stopped working in rear-aspect too now since the last major update. Is a report needed or is this a known issue? (and would it require docs to report?)
Exmaples:
5 Likes
Game is definitely ready for next gen missiles
You see there’s 2 types of IRCCM in this game.
One type does it’s best to counter flares by shutting off its seeker or narrowing its FOV so it doesn’t see the flare.
And the other type specifically takes out flares like an SPAA countering aircraft or A-G weapons.
Would be nice, especially since it’s featuring Italian domestic recoilless rifle Folgore.
R3 with Folgore would be also cool)
And AIM-120s even though it was an ahistorical nerf to air launched 120s…
And its funny that pilots were told to fire 120s in close range over 9Ms but here we are
Would make a pretty decent 9.3 like the VBCI, although would be 200 RPM. IIRC the VBCI is more?
Yep, but 120 buffs im doubting will ever happen
1 Like
I honestly wouldnt care for the AOA nerf atp if they fix the seeker, its chaff rejection or lack thereof is egregious
1 Like
Yep, its rather dumb how trivial they are too defeat
2 Likes
Then theres the R-77-1 thats practically impossible to get away from
Eh… ive not had too much of an issue, at least at anything beyond WVR, but the asymmetry in that regard is annyoing, given they have ARH and IR missiels that work in WVR and we barely have either
1 Like
The solution is quite shrimple really, Be French. Or that one Chinese transfer student…then your really well optimized for WVR
Why does the J-10C, a light aircraft, have greater drag than the Su-30SM2?
Plus HMD and better engines
Well they recently asked for the whole document on the AIM-120s so maybe they’ll finally do something.
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/FTINp3ILB1Ls?comment=ndKbZ6LLZUYmEU1FQR2uJujv
Although it is a little weird why they’d ask for the whole document rather than just implementing the report.