Let’s not mention it’s warhead, which carries 145x BLU-97/B bomblets that each have shaped charge with 200mm pen, and fragmentation/incendiary effects to boot
Huehuehuehue
Edit: I mean it sounds scary and potentially gamebreaking, but depending on how wide the impact area is, it wouldn’t be too different from a 2000lb bomb.
I know someone else has taken you on this but still.
The only context that date of service matters is in relation to historical mm.
Any argument that uses “immersion”, “y never fought x”, and/or “x is z years newer/older than y” is an argument for historical mm.
War thunder is not the game for that. There are games that actually try to do want you are looking for. I see that you like GHPC and tried Squad. I hope GHPC gets some sort of multiplayer spin off. I know that Squad is more infrantry focused but that does give it better immersion. How often did tanks fight in ww2 without any infrantry?
In the wild . . . just chillin’ . .
Sooooo Cooooooooool!
The F-117 is an aviation icon, however!
Let’s be realistic, this is just another bait to attract players. The game is full of problems to be solved and rough edges to be smoothed out and the only thing GJ does is release new vehicles.
But let’s be realistic, War Thunder IS, and always has been, an arcadey shooter, it has always been aimed primarily at the casual playerbase who are interested in Military vehicles. The mechanics of actually playing the game are completely arcadey in all modes apart from sim. War Thunder has never been a realistic Simulator.
I’ve been Registered since - 28/06/2014 - 3:14am, almost 10 years and 5 months, and I personally have never seen an exciting change in this game, at least for me and for people like me who like games that are a little longer and that demand a bit of brainpower. But contrary to my expectations, the game declined.
I can’t be unfair either, there were many very nice changes in the game’s effects and interface, that’s a fact, the addition of more modules to the vehicles is something really cool, I liked it, it makes me angry sometimes, but it’s cool, it’s a bit out of tune with the game, which didn’t continue its essence, but it’s good.
Okay, but what does this rant have to do with the F-117?
The fact that the F-117, besides being COOL, is just a Christmas tree ornament, a sitting duck inside the game. That we will research, use a few times and then throw into oblivion.
I understand that it will generate what the company wants, but I believe that for most players, if GJ spent its resources on other aspects of the game, it would be better for everyone, for us players and for them.
lol… I think I have seen some others like that, might have been one where a Pilot was starting to climb in the cockpit
And the obvious first step to gain feedback for usage of stealth, a mechanic that will be due relatively soon. Don’t forget that most vehicles only get used a few times and then forgotten, that won’t be new to the F-117. At the very least, this vehicle NEEDED to come first before any other stealth aircraft.
Telling 3D modelers to start working on game redesigns is an interesting ask. How do you suppose they are going to do that?
So I guess this plane will be useless in game…LOL so they have time to make usless plane but no time to make better Batle pass LOL…this game is such a lazy clumsy mess, just embarrassing at this point
Honestly, probably even less exp than the buccaneer S.1 as the F-117 carries less ordinance.
Produce exp by dropping bombs. Not producing the same amount of exp.
True, i misread :P
but i think i still bring a valid point as BR placement is based on efficiency per spawn.
That is true but based on the aircrafts flight performance it seems like it will sit well at 8.7 it will without a doubt be the lowest preforming 8.7 but i don’t see it getting any better. Unless maybe you put it against props but that would be absurd placement.
I’m definetly going to play this plane
All aircraft have hooks even the f16s. They are for emergency where the aircraft looses brakes. That take what is called a trap. There are cables that get set up across the runway to help stop the plane. The difference between the one used by the airforce and the navy’s is the navy’s is much heavier and more robust. Do to being used to stop aircraft landing on carriers.
Yeah, I hate the fact that in WT anything with a hook is considered carrier capable. Just in this patch the F-105’s hook should be “corrected” to actually deploy when landing on a carrier…
Why?!?
Czech air museum - Kunovice - there is an inscription on the board: invisible stealth plane … :-)))
A safety arresting device, the tailhook, might not be out of place to model on fixed airports in the game. it would be for enough players, good training for landing on an aircraft carrier…
Maybe Gaijin could be creative and then add one of the versions… YF-117A with day camo, or F-117 N projects; F-117 B(N) …
As a squadron machine, it will certainly be unique, but not all players are members of the squadron and again the machine does not have such a useful value, buy it for Golden Lions …
The emergancy airfield arrestor hook and system is re-useable. So for those aircraft with hooks meant for emergancy landings, if they land on an aircraft carrier the hook should snap off/break and not stop you, just decelerate you slightly (nowhere near enough to stop you, and at worst rip your airframe apart depending on how it is attached internally).
RWY’s in War Thunder should have the emergancy arrestor system so that if you put the landing gear down but no flaps, the hooks on naval and emergancy arrestor system aircraft have their hooks deployed. This immediately retracts if you have flaps selected on landing.
This would be a realistic approach to the arrestor hooks ingame on so many aircraft. If you make the mistake of landing without flaps (or they are damaged/missing), aslong as you hook onto the wires you can land without crashing. If you are landing and have working landing flaps and you use them, the hook doesn’t deploy since you should easily be able to land on the airfield.