Stealth was never the intention, it just happened to have a “lower RCS” and not by a meaningful amount I would guess, since the thing is propeller driven
1 Like
Are you guys planning on expanding a bit on how the inner workings of stealth mechanics are gonna be implemented in WT? I’d like to understand if all planes are going to use available RCS analysis, or if you’re going to throw the game’s 3d models on a RCS simulation software to get those values, or if it’s going to be a static value with a bit of vector math, or a simplified 3d mesh like VTOL does… anyhow, a blog post explaining your approach to it, like we had for other mechanics and graphics in the past.
7 Likes
Yeah 100%, it would reassure a lot of critics like me who doubt the accuracy of the F-117’s stealth as modeled on the dev server
1 Like
For it to be “common sense,” doesn’t the sense have to be, well, common? There seems to be a lot of people who think it’s common sense that it should be at a BR where it doesn’t get massacred. Therefore, it’s not common sense.
3 Likes
Fair. Doesn’t change that there is nothing wrong with mig 15s shooting down 117s
I don’t have strong views either way about whether it’s OK for early cold war aircraft to shoot the stealth dorito down or not.
My angle on this is that it’s a missed opportunity for the F-117 to use it’s stealth ability, seeing as nobody has good radar guided weaponry at the tier
I’d like to see it buffed as much as possible and as such fit into a BR where RCS is relevant.
3 Likes
GRB it’s going to be 10.0 where it’s stealth will play more of an role. (If it doesn’t change)
Unfortunately not. It’s common sense/knowledge you should wash your hands after using the toilet, yet many don’t do it.
It can still be brought up in line-ups in GRB. It was never intended to be used in an air-to-air role. “Fighter” was a misnomer given to the project because at the time, bomber projects were not popular investments.
2 Likes
Well, there is a reason why the weapon racks drop down into the slipsteam, it was to allow line of sight for guided weapons such as Sidewinder.
It wouldn’t be correct to say the F-117 was never intended to shoot air targets, because in the conceptual stage it was theorized it could be employed against AWACS, sneaking close to fire FOX-2 at them.
This never materialized because a radar was needed to locate said AWACS, and this was difficult to incorporate in a stealthy manner
It just happened that this route wasn’t pursued, and it was instead developed into a bomber for attack missions.
Just because the designers preserved that capability does not mean it was ever intended to be a fighter.
There is a reason why it was only operated at night and didn’t have a radar. You should read Skunk Works.
Most definitely an accident I agree.
It is though… because one option is none and the other is a mix, i’m not asking about making all of it theoretical.
If you have even one theoretical then you have them, if you don’t you don’t.
It’s literally impossible to make it a gray area in this case as the gray area automatically becomes “having theoretical matchups”.
So then it is as i said, its not about a blanket issue, its about specific cases you want fixed or changed.
put it higher than that and no one will be able to play it in air modes. It’s a game, it’s supposed to be about fun, not about accurate matchups.
That is a sad outlook to have on the game.
you’re thinking to big, CAS and bombers in air modes work as it is currently, it might not be as diverse as it could be, but that doesn’t mean that those two aren’t accommodated for, why do you think ground AI and bases exist?
You have to think smaller in that case, and if you accommodate one type of bomber it might not accommodate another. all bombers/CAS don’t work the same.
See above, my statement puts shades of gray into one of the options. if you have gray, then the gray can be moved, then it isn’t a blanket issue, its an issue on specific matchups that aren’t to your specific liking. If the gray area is already there, then that is the blanket function you just want specific thing about it to change, not to change the entire blanket.
it quite literally semantically does.
That makes perfect sense, but is not what you first said, it might have been what you ment, but not what you said. This is why semantics are important.
1 Like
8.7 aircraft
3 Likes
Next you’re gonna compare B-29 and BF109 E3.
Your complaint was the MIG-17 and F-117 being at the same BR. Clearly the MIG will be no match for the 117.
lOoK aT tHiS pHoTogRaPh
3 Likes
Every time I do it make me laugh.
3 Likes
Truly a meme from the golden age
2 Likes