If everyone just ignored certain people this would be a better thread.
It’s really simple to just do this yall:
to
12 Likes
Why take my words out of context? And you’re trying to tie them to something I didn’t say? I made myself perfectly clear. They don’t look at one characteristic, but rather the aircraft as a whole. If you don’t see how the IRIAF is better and why it’s 13.3 while the 14B is 13.0, then might I recommend you buy glasse?
Not out of context at all!
OK them so back to the point before you derailed with more nonsense
Where does your logic apply to the f14 iran being 13.3 while the D is 13.0?
1 Like
I’m pretty sure the f14A-65-gr was more like a f-14B(u) upgrade the f14A-65 as far that I’m aware of didn’t have the apg71 to be capable of using AMRAAMs and I’m pretty sure you can’t use the awg9 to guide AMRAAMs
Maybe hypersonic missiles that can hit an enemy 100 km away? Are u trolling or what?
Except most of us aren’t asking for simply a missile load out rework. We’re asking for either
A: A tech tree version with better missile load outs
or
B: Actual justification for the $80 price tag.
Let me lay this out very clearly so you can understand. The way the F14D is being planned for release feels like complete disrespect for the aircraft, and the community. A good example of what this feels like is, if you guys were to announce the F15EX were being introduced, you would add it as a premium for $100, and proceed give it the AIM9X, Any AMRAAM variant, and only dumb bombs. Sounds completely irrational doesn’t it?
3 Likes
It is a miracle the mods aren’t doing anything here.
Arguing for hours under a devblog, geting rather personal at times… an unusal sight to bare witness to.
2 Likes
They don’t have to prove anything to you about their private pricing policy.
LOL.
What does this parameter even do?
essentially block him
1 Like
Bro had nothing meaningful to add to the conversation. Incredible 👏👏👏
6 Likes
So just the missiles make.f14 good.
Same way Missile count on f16 makes it bad 14.3
Yet you somehow argue both sides…
Oh, good to know! Won’t block this specific guy though because I have no idea who he is or what he did and said
Why are they required to disclose their income and income plans?
Or can every coffee buyer calmly demand at the checkout that their cup of coffee is justified? Sounds funny
I guess I gotta clarify what I said so you can understand. Justify the 80 dollar price tag by giving it the AIM9M, AIM9P, AIM54C+, and AIM120A/B.
Its simple to understand.
1 Like
Because there are always exceptions to the rule. If you’re given an F14 missile with a nuclear bomb that kills the entire enemy team, you’ll only look at its quantity.
As I said before, we look at overall stats, stats, FM, and avionics and more and more. There’s no exact measure.
And that’s why we say that looking only at the number of missiles and their characteristics is wrong if we talking about balance.
so as it gets AIM-9M can it be put at 13.0 or can mig-29 9-13 and su-27S go down 0.3 br in airsim no?
Why should they do this? Because you are unhappy?
Ok that Cobra guy doesn’t understand that when something is wrong and mistake we should fix it.
AIM-54s are ALL wrong.
The 17G is an excuse of no dual plane maneuvering, but R-27 gets 35G with no dual plane maneuvering.
The missile no matter how they model the missile (if it banks etc) should have 25G , which is stated in EVERY paper and data and interview you’ll come across.
There is no " muh balance" . It worked like that.
Like R-27 worked like that. Like any missile that they at least try to model correctly as much.
Then 54C in reality and to take advantage of its engine has VERY different flight envelope than 54A with MK60 engine. Mk60 is more bursty, but 54C with Mk47 mod1 will overtake it in a 10 to 30 km distance depending on altitude, the higher the better. And we talk about missiles that you can hit at 60km easily (not talking max range, just an optimum one) . Also , especially in terminal phase 54C should carry more speed and energy than mk60/54A. 54C is rated 5mach , 54A is rated 4,3 mach… it shouldn’t be faster missile. Just more bursty.
And for 14D.
It NEVER carried/was certified or compatible with 54C. It carried 54C ECCM/sealed. ONLY.
54C ECCM/Sealed , had PD radar for sure, had electronics and tech with commonality with 120A and different warhead as well. And ofc was much more resistant to ECM ( for when they will bring ECM).
So you are telling us that you don’t want the plane to be accurate and BETTER than what they want us to get. Because it will go 0,3 up in BR.
I mean if they actually fix the 54s the plane will be very good , unless you play against 14,3+.
Now , with those 54s and AIM-7M without 7P , you are already outclassed at 13.3 because you have nothing against F90s and Su-30s that will just rain you with missiles.
8 Likes
You can provide any evidence to the developers, from 2 independent sources, and they will fix everything.