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.
9 Likes
You can provide any evidence to the developers, from 2 independent sources, and they will fix everything.
Every single person i’ve talked to both in matches, and all of the people i’ve spoken to that actually play top tier all agree that the way its being announced and implemented feels like an absolute joke, and a cheap cash grab. Just because you may not feel a certain way, doesn’t mean everyone else doesn’t either.
8 Likes
1 Like
The developers are introducing the bare minimum possible donations in all free games. I don’t know what kind of money-grabbing scheme you’re talking about? You obviously haven’t played other free games; they offer literally unique technology only for money, and sometimes even for gambling chests.
In the end, you can just not buy it. You are not forced to.
We have provided from 50 sources go read the topics for 54s and f-14s…
That’s what are we saying. They don’t listen intentionally.
That’s why everyone is mad.
I want to buy the plane, i’d like a TT one too, but i’d buy that. But the correct plane.
What they do with the 54C ECCM/sealed is practically take its M61A1out and give you a GAU-2/M134 minigun…
Like take the Hispanos from spitfire and give it AN/M2 …different thing and wrong thing.
6 Likes
Where, then, is the exceedingly simple fix for M735?
This means the sources aren’t reliable. Google and Wikipedia are not good sources.
If the developers rejected it, it means they have a more reliable source.
Because the f14A-65-gr is a testing vehicle that test stuff for the f14 in general it tested if the f14 could carry and launch the amraam with digital tech and like I said I’m pretty sure it had the analog awg9 and not the digital apg71 witch is why I say it’s more of a f14B(u) upgrade expect f110 engines that it needs to fully use aim120 that the f14D has everything it needs to use aim120 not to mention the only f14D that was supposed to use aim120
1 Like
“could” This is just a guess. You need to obtain reliable information that the system has been tested and successfully integrated.
I’ve posted enough info for the f14D to come with AMRAAMs already
5 Likes
if you make aim 54 maneuverable like any other radar missile, then it’s Br will be treated same. wanna have only headon doppler at 13.0?
1 Like
would be actually good to have 13.3 yank premium as counterpart to 30mk instead of trashing 12.7
Your sources are not reliable and therefore cannot be accepted by the developer.