The F-14A we have in-game is the 1977 SAC model which did not use AIM-54C.
And? The 3D model is that of a much later remanufactured block 130.
This has been reported, devs are aware. The intended model is the 1977 SAC equivalent. The ordnance available to it matches the SAC sheet… which is AIM-9H, AIM-7F, and AIM-54A. This isn’t my opinion or something… it is the previous statement from the devs on the old forum. I can’t be bothered to go dig for it.
Unless they change their minds, that is all we will receive for F-14A.
You never know we might get a Late, to go with the Early model at some point. I just really don’t get why they call it Early then don’t even add it in anything resembling an introductory configuration, it first flew in '72, first combat sorties in '75 and retires in '80~'87 depending on the CSG the squadron was assigned to and we get a '77 of all things.
And it doesn’t even have the option to equipt the IRSTS or TCS for some reason even though in practically all images the fairing should still be there until older airframes begin to be remanufactured.
The main differences outside the 3D model issues (and unimplemented mechanics) for a '75 would be the ALR-23 and losing access to the AIM-9D. an actual block 130 could also have the Bombcat mods that the -14B has access to.
1 Like
Considering they had continuous upgrades going into the 2000s I’d say a 1977 model is quite “early”.
I’m pretty sure the F-14A late is going to be the tier VIII American premium. All the upgrades of our current F-14B with TF-30 engines.
Not looking like were get any reduced smoke motor or any other fixes coming for the AIM-54C this patch either…
Couple that with the proxy fuze bug and the missile just falls more and more into irrelevancy.
Don’t bother till they add more fox 3. F14 doesn’t generate money anymore, f16c is the new cashcow
I doubt theyd fix anything on the F-14 really, from the horrendously modelled TCS to the joke that is the AIM-54C and the incorrectly modelled AIM-7M.
As you said, they have no reason to ever fix anything on it now, so why would they bother. They clearly rather believe what they wanna believe instead of follow sources and model accurately.
2 Likes
The AIM-7M is incorrectly modelled not because of neglect or misinformation, it’s just that nearly every other SARH missile is artificially buffed.
AIM-7M is also underperforming
The 7M is significantly underperforming, missing trajectory shaping, its substantially more susceptible to clutter than it should be, with its min alt is stated at 5m, in-game it will miss afk targets flying below 95m nearly 100%, if not 100% of the time, and maneuvering target at even higher alts, and its missing a directional warhead, which in turn reduces its lethality.
At least 1 of those issues (the excessive multipath resulting in poor low altitude intercept) was already reported and acknowledged as well: Community Bug Reporting System
the document that is from is for above water which will have way less interference from ground returns to affect multipathing, considering other SARHs of the era had min altitudes between 20 and 30m I’d imagine the AIM-7M is also in that ballpark too. Nonetheless the multipath affect ingame ofc is too high at 100m, for the sake of gameplay I do not mind since having to fly super low in 16v16 would be pretty hectic and I think major gameplay changes would be required to make multipathing more realistic for the game to still be fun
Not always.
not always but an altitude as low as 5 meters assumes relatively calm water (waves create interference) I dont think its unreasonable to come to the conclusion the AIM-7M’s min altitude above ground is higher than its min altitude above water
But what kind of ground?
- Soil?
- Grass?
- Concrete?
- Ice?
- Snow?
- Sand?
we don’t know what other missiles test it can vary, its why just looking at a single stated minimum altitude without context can lead to inconsistencies. I recall the Skyflash being around 30m above water stated in a manual, but we dont know if this is choppy or calm water. For the AIM-7M we are left to assume aswell, infact it doesnt even specify water. Then you have missiles like the R-27 which are stated for 20m min altitude but we also still dont know the conditions for which this is for. I think gaijan has the right idea of keeping min altitude the same for all SARHs but I also think it would be fine for them to atleast seperate monopulse from connical missiles performance, however I doubt people want the minimum altitude for their AIM-7E/Fs becoming higher too so at the end of the day I think it should be played with based off gameplay rather than going off a single document
So the F-14A “early” in game is the F-14A-100-GR?
That’s a pretty strange take. It’s more accurate to say the Strela didn’t get it’s optical mode until the Type 81 was added. When the Strela was first added Gaijin rejected a bug report about the optical tracking claiming it was something they didn’t plan to implement. It was only when the Type 81 came along and Gaijin needed a way to give Japan a SAM that didn’t suck against helicopters that they put the effort into making optical tracking work; and gave it to the Strela at the same time.
6 Likes
The thing is that the “optical tracking” added is not at all the systems used by the Type 91 or Type 81, it is only used by the Strela IRL. It is not a IIR system and has all the issues the Strela’s optical tracker has.
If you want to see further depth as to why this is not at all the correct implementation of IIR seekers for these missiles just check out the Type 91 thread, there have already been numerous posts about how it is just a butchered strela seeker bolted onto these missiles to make the Type 91 and Type 81 not hot garbage.