its not its exactly the same
This has been the thing ever since it got introduced, nothing has changed. There is no coding conflict, it will just always do surface lock because it can
2 Likes
so it seems like since the su30sm2 has a stone age RWR so should the J15T, because as we all know Russian clearly has the bestest goodest avionics in the world and everyone else is worse
5 Likes
Su30sm2 should also get a better one…
1 Like
its (kd88/a) seeker isnt meant to lock really far away anyways, its an MITL with only the seeker being used at terminal range
There’s even a report up for it
3 Likes
Cope retoric here, all the jets that have a good RWR coverage were backed by source, both Rafale and EFT for instance. The Su-30SM2 has a report to increase its coverage up to ±90 degrees with some sources attached, the J-15 has a report that literally goes: “the J-10C and J-15 are new therefore they deserve spherical RWR”…
Like Kizvy said yesterday new =/= spherical.
2 Likes
To be fair, modern jets tends to depend more on their esm suite. I remember someone posting a pic of j15t with some radome on the leading edge, i wouldnt be surprised if its for ecm and esm.
Jets like f35 and su57 have a vast coverage with their smaller arrays that they have essentially a 360 degrees esm. Its just more accurate and longer ranged, more effective against lpi and can even provide fire control
Thing is info is limited, even for su30sm2 rwr coverage buffs, the sources are very few
1 Like
At least they are integrated into reports tho, to try and get them through, blaming the state of the J-15 on the SM2 is copemaxxing.
3 Likes
Well tbh they are kinda in the right with their coping, cause how do you want to provide sources on a 2024 plane from a country which in itself is already incredibly hard to get sources from. (Also considering that guessing of off Pictures as well as calculations is not accepted by gajin). I am not saying that their coping is justified completely, just that the moment the J-15T was revealed that it was over for itbug reporting wise since there literally arent any sources on said plane
4 Likes
then how do they know its wrong
they dont but we cant prove they are either, so its up to them
if they think that the J-15 is modeled incorrectly then they have to prove it
like everyone else
1 Like
well some things can be guessed upon by using logical thinking eg using a RWR from the J-7E or using the same radar as the J-10C
2 Likes
well when you have the same radar stats between two wildly different radars
2 Likes
then tell me what radar the J-15T uses
or even how it looks like
which is a thousand times better than gaijin just halucinating a radar into existance
not really when the radome is visibly bigger and at an angle which indicates a slanted fixed AESA which is common with most modern chinese jets (imo they should just increase the lockranges for all modes by a few %)
5 Likes
well tbh chinese bug reporting will be dead for a few now since this mostly AI generated report hit the CBRS Community Bug Reporting System (all most all pics are AI generated or falsified by AI)
Here’s the thing. You can’t. And this will universally apply, I think in a year or two, people will be looking at say AN/APG85 and say HOW TF am I supposed to prove to Gaijin it doesn’t have 10km range?
They will have to either apply more common sense upon addition or allow some deduction when answering to bug report. Realism already failed, just use a bit more common sense to make the game more fun and balanced won’t be an entirely bad idea.
Not saying we ditch all standards for bug report but this level of primary source requirement will simply be impossible.
Which every single Chinese radar since like J-8F already is.
9 Likes