They fixed it originally by just removing TV sight if you had a targetting pod. But theyve re-added the tv back and those issue have returned. So they need to apply that fix again. I think (especially in SB) there are issue when you cycle from cockpit to the TIALD pod you have to pass through the TV sight, and this can reset things like CCRP or the target lock and for ease. I’d like to be able to toggle between cockpit and targetting pod without needing to into TV sight.
The targetting pod i have 2 theories why it was omitted.
-
it wasnt ready and so it will come when it is ready. Happens all the time. FRS1 was released 6 months ago and still has the wrong (placeholder) radar and cockpit.
-
they were concerned about grb balance and they werent sure if it is needed it or not. Vikhrs are notoriously strong on the Ka-50. By not adding it, they can add it later if it needed a grb buff. Its easier to add something later than remove something or change its br.
Number 1 is more likely though, and that is my best guess however
1 Like
There are 2 categories of Premium vehicles.
-
Those that are unique whether due to a story behind it or because of the nature of the vehicle. Due to that unique nature they do not fit neatly in the tech tree and are either added as event vehicles or as Premiums. The Sea-Vixen is a prime example of this.
-
The second are those that are added as premium to give players a skip option / high economy version. These vehicles could have been placed in the tech tree without issue, which by very definition is P2W. The Su-39 falls within this second category.
Based upon its ground attack loadout, in a skilled players hand it could wipe out the entire enemy team in grb. In SB a premium jet, especially a CAS/Attacker makes millions of SLs. It has powerful features like IRCM that havent been added onto any other jet at the moment. You might have the entire soviet tree, but not all do, especially those who prominently play GRB, That is why this jet was added, for GRB, not ARB. For those players it is most definetly a P2W jet, as it gives them one of the best CAS jets in the game without having to do any work on Air tree to grind out the Su-25T. A lot of nations are lacking the same luxury.
4 Likes
Also a clean IDS is…well isn’t it pointless?
Logically speaking if you’re carrying 200 different bombs on your aircraft you should expect a performance decrease.
ADV has better engines than IDS
Both German Tornados have better engines but lets forget about it right?
There is a difference between a premium warrior not having the best premium aircraft and the aircraft genuinely being bad. Do you realise this also affect both the SU-39 and the non premium warrior SU-25T?
Yes, I have played and suffered through the 25T grind and you better believe me that I’m never playing it in ARB EVER AGAIN.
Although I’m REALLY AGAINST any buffs, especially for the premium as you don’t beed to grind any mods and can just spam it in ground.
1 Like
I’ll do some quick maths for you and everyone else in this discussion.
Plane = Air RB
Tank = Ground RB
Issue: SU-39/SU-25T (plane) can’t play Air RB
Solution: R-73 or R-27
1 Like
Something to note aswell
Its a ground attacker not a fighter
1 Like
No, LMFAO.
It does not need ordnance like that, not in the current iteration.
All it takes is a map tweak so it can reach ground objectives easier ( IT IS A GROUND ATTACKER, NOT A FIGHTER) and boom, issue solved, not like you’re going to lose sl, hell I gained a bunch while maintaining a 0.5 KD ( again, NOT a fighter) and getting some ground units/bases.
They could also increase the number of bomb bases for regular modes, because it’s kind of needed for ground attackers, NOT fighters.
(I think you see where I’m going with this, but again, it’s NOT A FIGHTER)
1 Like
SU-39 is a multirole aircraft which has been mentioned like 100 times.
It’s simply for balance or what do you have in mind? Lowering the BR isn’t reasonable and giving it better A2A capabilities is really the only option.
No?
It’s in a spot that is sort of suitable for it, all it really needs is the top tier BRs to move up, which will most likely happen within the next few months.
The other solution is increasing the side objective density and how close they appear to you, in case of the Su-25T adding more heavy AIs would already help as it has the punch for it.
(Again, if you have the premium one, play it in ground and don’t give me the excuse you can’t get the SP for it, that’s clearly an issue of skill given how good of vics you can get.)
Nobody mentioned that it’s hard to get SP with it but the experience overall isn’t fun. Most people on this page have a clear bias towards the SU-39 in general and especially because of its “premium role” which shouldn’t be used for a balancing standpoint.
At the end of the day the SU-39 is a multirole aircraft being treated as a ground attacker, it’s been limited by ordinance (most being reasonable) but some outright stupid. An example of this is the SU-39 being able to carry 4x R-60Ms but lets forget about that right?
Clearly an option yes, honestly the best one. The tech tree one is still more deserving of it, because it takes more effort to grind it out ( not sayin 39 shouldn’t get it).
Then again, the more advanced stuff should be fitted to it SLOWLY, if even, and even then the newer and higher br tech tree stuff shoud get it first.
Also premium vics rarely change much and don’t be mad at me if it stays as it is, it’s your purchase after all.
it’s your purchase after all
Oh no I’m not mad at all I’m just speaking for those who are struggling in the aircraft so far, I’m finding my experience in my SU-39 pretty decent but would rather play my Harrier GR.7 by a long run.
The tech tree one is still more deserving of it, because it takes more effort to grind it out
Gotta disagree and simply because that’s how the game is at the end of the day. All non premium vehicles are required to go through the same progress but the experience can be made much better depending on its stock ordinances.
Oh yeah and the SU-39 is a literal upgrade over the SU-25T, and a major one at that.
Clearly an option yes
The missing 4x R-60M shouldn’t be a opinion but an addition without a doubt and it’s silly how it never got added with the SU-39 in the patch.
This discussion is still happening? Why don’t we just wait and see what Gaijin decides to do with it when the balance changes happen?
1 Like
Most on here, even those against radical or even any AAM upgrades all agree that this was likely a missing loadout “bug” and not a balancing issue. This likely will come in future. Prehaps if you have information confirming that it could without a doubt carry 4x R-60Ms ( i know it could carry 2x R-60M and 2xR-27 at the same time, but could be difference in mounting) then submit a full and detailed bug report. If others have not done so yet.
Most at this point have concerns about the raw power that would come from the R-73s or the potential power from adding BVRs to this jet. Just read through the last 700+ post outlining those concerns. But as Kingtiez has said. It is out of our hands. Gaijin has already confirmed that its for GRB and that in that role its performing as hoped. Whether or not they deem an AAM upgrade necessary will only be told in time. But based upon other Attackers we have in-game. A jet meant for GRB will be balanced for GRB and be a tough aircraft to fly in ARB. Its unfortunate but unavoidable until ARB and GRB are decoupled
Then why does the A10 get BETTER missiles, at a whole 1.0 BR lower , AND DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF MİSSİLES? Just give A-10 9Ps then, it’s a ground attacker.
Worse performance, An A-10 is never going to run down Jets it faces if they are running, and conversely can’t rely on turning cold to get out of a bad situation, so it will die often, and considering the glaring energy generation issues it has, it would be to easily exploitable. And considering that BR is assigned based on the performance of the average player, the removal of missiles, let alone downrating them to Rear-Aspect variants would see a drop likely sufficient to put it into games with Props, which presents obvious issues, just look at the P-59.
On the whole its pretty fairly assigned and its not like the A-10C would do much better anyway.
There are a number of issues; That the A-10 only ever carried the LAU-105, and as such was never a Single rail Sidewinder Launcher (e.g. LAU-7A/A) cleared for flight, even though the A-10A Early is constrained to only a pair of missiles for balance reasons.
The LAU-105 cannot carry USAF developed of Sidewinders (AIM-9E/-9J /-9N /-9P), due to not having the right internals to support their carriage, and there were no USN developed All Aspect models that would otherwise perform worse than the AIM-9L, so not an option, if things are to remain accurate, let alone historical.
Anyway the A-10 already struggles massively with wanting to maintain negative G’s & sluggish elevator response, a DM made of paper in comparison to the Su-25, ordnance that isn’t properly modeled, missing ordnance and more.
1 Like
At 11.3 (which faces %99.9 12.0) being 1000 kph makes no difference, at least A-10 gets good missiles and endless flare/chaff spam
We already did say as well this is a game and in this game the SU 39 just is supposed to be a strike aircraft and not a multirole fighter, because of balancing reasons you just dont accept that