This is a game and no the real life.
And i dont care the ground rb so i dont care the kh38mt so i dont care if they remove that.
I just care the plane fm now its a joke
2 Likes
And the Sea Harrier FRS1 is only just getting its placeholder HUD corrected after 2.25 years and still got a number of other outstanding bug reports left to be fixed. All Harriers are finally getting some of their IRL turn performance but its taken years to get and more left to come hopefully
Tornados IDS still have basically none of their radar modeled among other issues
Typhoon’s radar is buggy mess and barely usable at the moment ,easily on par with the performance of the Su-27s radar despite being “the best mechanical radar in the world”
So… Your point being?
Mig-29 was over performing, it got nerfed. Still dominated with the R-27ER though which was so far ahead of the competition that BVR combat was just not a thing and multipath hugging and IR combat became the meta.
( was not fun in the Tornado F3)
So prove it. Find sources and bug report its FM.
Its a game that prides itself on being as accurate to real-life as game limitations allow. If you want “balanced modeling”, play world of airplanes.
2 Likes
But SARH didn’t introduce hug the ground meta F-14 did? Also didn’t the Gripen with the unlimited flares dominated in that?
Also MiG-29 can barely raye fight now no? Despite being able to match that of an F-16? They artificially introduced the 27ER to compensate how bad it was or rather it is, when the easy fix would have been to give its R-73s and retain the 27Rs
2 Likes
I just love a missile that changes the meta to go against it’s host aircraft lmao.
Not to the same extent imo. I dont recall having to spend my entire time at 50ft until after the Mig-29s were added.
Maybe, but then they ahistorically nerfed ALL BOL to be 1/4 their IRL size. Still waiting for them to give us back IRL performance BOL as that nerfed crippled EVERYTHING that used BOL. Such as the F3, Gr7, FA2, Viggens, F-14B, etc.
Did it? could it? Have sources for that?
It was given R-27ERs because R-73s at that time would have been too OP. Personally I think the R-73s would have been favourable and they should be swapped now R-73s are in-game. But it was never a fake buff to make the Mig-29 competitive. It was perfectly competitive and still is at its BR. Thats what BR is for. If it was underperforming, they’d low the BR of it.
In what world is Su-30SM and F-15E useless just cause they’re not Typhoon, F-18C, or Rafale?
Then why haven’t they fixed it? Lol its been brought up a million times in the forums…so yeah its bias
So you’re claiming NATO bias because NATO tanks are stronger than the BVM… okay.
3 Likes
they fixed it, and then added spall liners to NATO tanks, making them far more survivable than the T-series, so the ‘bias’ is tipped towards NATO MBTs right now, sorry to burst you bubble :D
1 Like
As someone who currently enjoys 27SM way more than the entire US air toptier all I can say is - screw the flight model, screw the cobra button, just the radar is already very much worth it.
I feel like 27SM hits a pretty good spot in terms of TWR, and according to statshark at 5000m alt in terms of acceleration in a straight line the difference between 27SM and 30SM is just shy of 100km/h after 40ish seconds. So if 27SM is decent and reaches 1500km/h after X amount of time, 30SM would have reached 1400-1410. Again, just the radar is already well worth the tradeoff. Not to mention, like, everything else.
Also, given how “current” 27SM was conjured from a mishmash of several SM’s over a span of a few updates, there is a non-zero chance we could see that again at some point.
Yeah thats fair besides the Abrams and its DU Armor inserts that hasn’t been added
Followed by France, the USA, Japan, and arguably Britain. I prefer the Challenger 2’s over something like the T-90M.
When we get the F-22 first
Ok and? my point still stands, r73 is infact not easy to flare under 2km.
Well if the USA mains can’t get free easy kills, then they nerf everyone else till they can.
Then why is the R-77 so bad? It was very comparable to the AMRAAM, while the R-77-1 was better than it.
“iRL performance is all that matters”
Then, why, does the Abrams have a 5.0 sec reload which has been proven to be inaccurate ?
Why is the AZ loader on the T-64B/80U,UK,BVM etc not 6.0 secs like irl?
Kinda weird eh? It’s been proven from cyclogram data
But it’s realistic
It hasn’t been.
Because Gaijin hasn’t modelled mechanics that make it perform more accurately as far as I know.
1 Like
What? just because RU main has to actually aim weak spot instead of point any direction that isn’t turret cheek make them OP instantly? lol
Find a true combat load for the abrams then lol