the dual pylons for r77s are based on the dual pylons used by su35 , they already added the eft/rafale, they can go ahead and add the su35 , but ig they dont want to and they just want to balance the game by adding its loadout to a worse platform for the sake of balance. eft will probably get its dual pylons if it were used irl , none of the eurofighter variants use dual pylons for aim120/meteor irl , atleast the su35 can dual pylons for r77s irl.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
Sure at the moment. So if the Su-30 becomes the best we can remove the double racks?
they may or may not remove dual pylons for r77 in the su30sm , its just the dev server and depending on how it performs they may remove it or let it stay.
Sure. Why not. Never being a fan of it. Remove everything and Fix the plane/Missile. Also add Su-35s.
The Su-35 can be used thanks to a different airframe and increased space between the engines.
1 Like
1: i wasnt talking about ground, and i dont care about ground rb
when the su27sm first came out, it was fighting the f15c and it was struggling HARD to deal with that thing, later, it was fighting the RAFALE, EF AND F15E/I, and finally gaijin stopped usin the t10 prototype manual and fixed the su27 based on its actual manual, the double pylons also helped to fight the new top dogs, but the su27sm was never and still isnt the meta plane.
again i dont care about ground, go ask gaijin to remove the kh-38, it will make 0 difference in my life.
holy cope about a heli that has no thermals when today we have fnf missiles on helis that are 100% more annoying
cause other nations dont build systems like that, they use patriots or something else.(go ask gaijin to add them i dont care either, every cas in ground is annoying and they should all suffer)
4 Likes
What are the problems for non Su-35 airframes in that regard? Does the double 77 rack simply not fit, or are there problems / risks of hitting the airframe when the 77 is launched?
IIRC it also because only planes which actually did used double racks are Su-35 and 30SM2.
yea i get it , ig at this point they just want to focus more on balancing the game than making it realistic ? i mean they could skip straight to su35 instead of adding su30sm and it would have been much better. we already have modern rafales so i dont think it would have been an issue.
Dual racks barely fit between Su-35 intakes which has by my rough calculations I did about 15% wider space
imo it’s more unrealistic the EF sustain 16g+ in a turn than the double pylons D: but yeah, balance takes priority over realism sometimes
It is possible that there are restrictions on the modes…
Earlier, our people wrote that electronic scanning at angles greater than 40 degrees is ineffective. Apparently, new signal processing algorithms have appeared…
It is quite possible that in the mode of electronic-mechanical scanning, the angles are the same 40 +30…
I am simply shocked that this mistake was even made and has existed to this day. It is difficult to imagine a more negligent attitude towards one’s product, called realistic and even a simulator.
Su-35 is too strong.
there is a risk of impact on the body during launch
1 Like
MiG-35 is capable of mounting TVC engines and can be exported to customers in that configuration if they simply request it. But it is not default on the aircraft, and its not known what the poaition is with Gaijin on historically acceptable configurations that aren’t actually in active service.
They need money.But what I’ve already seen is a crappy FM and an equally crappy 3D model.
The point was Russia do not and never have suffered.
You may not care about ground…well thats where this Su-30 is going to be used. They even gave it KH-38s…with pylons it cannot equip
In-ground? seriously? M1 Abrams vs T-64?
Gaijin have never modeled G limits.
Stop singling out the Typhoon when every jet has egregious G limits.