Even if it would make the plane unique I doubt that Gaijin will do this. Easier to copy paste the Mig29Gs loadout than… copy paste an in-game missile rail and an in-game missile onto it.
Would be cool but hopes and expectations are very low
I mean we got French F-16 with Magics so Id say theres potential
That F16 was added with Magic 2s in mind. This one is and most likely will remain a copy paste job
1 Like
Changelog updated:
1 Like
Yeah thats often how i spell it too
i cant use a keyboard very well lol
1 Like
1 Like
actually nice to hear. Thanks for pinging me
1 Like
When JAS 39E ? Sweden will never fair without JAS 39E
On the Churchill gears report, which has been incorrectly implemented;
Minor corrections and loss of some reverse speed due to implementation of historical gear ratios is fine.
But why was the engine rpm of the Churchill I and Churchill GC changed? I guess the responsible dev simply assumed that rpm could be copied backwards, we’re lucky that the Churchill VII didn’t receive 20.4 km/h @ 2550 rpm to match.
Correct top speeds and governed engine speeds for the Churchills in game are as follows;
- Churchill I - 28.0 km/h @ 2400 rpm, Merrit-Brown H4 transmission, also applies to the Churchill Gun Carrier.
- Churchill III - 29.75 km/h @ 2550 rpm, Merrit-Brown H4 transmission, applies to all Churchill III & IV variants including the NA75, AVRE, and German Churchill III.
- Churchill VII 21.72 km/h @ 2200 rpm, different transmission (Merrit-Brown H41) ratios & new, later primary source showing 13.5 mph top speed.
Reports;
Churchill Gun Carrier + Mk.1 Incorrect RPM
[DEV] Churchill gear update implemented incorrectly
Churchill VII top speed incorrect
Seeing as Churchills are getting worked on this update, could the inaccuracies so far introduced on the Churchill I & III series please be corrected before release?
3 Likes
bruh red alert called they want their SPG back
1 Like
I would just love to know a source for typhoons having different search zones. I could not find any. Even found things like:
“Mk-1 / Mk-2 variants are described as different in electronics and EW capability”
abd
“No meaningful public evidence that Germany’s ECRS Mk-1 has a strictly smaller boresight/search sector than the UK’s ECRS Mk-2 — both are described as having a FoR exceeding 180°”
The brochure for it mentions ±90 degrees which is 180
±90° FoV (i.e. 180°) and I just said that all 3 ef should be same.
Made screenshot from www.airbus.com brochure:
smfh dont quote the part that’s wrong that makes me look bad
they do not have the same repositioner.
mk1 has same repositioner as mk0, but a different antenna
mk2 has different antenna and different repositioner to mk0 and mk1
1 Like
Sry mate, just flying over the hundreds of messages in the EFT thread. Must have overlooked the correction regarding the repositioner. Took it out of the quote.
haha it’s fine
As someone that plays Air AB - could you at least make this one a Strike Aircraft, so that it gets the better in air reload time on dumb bombs and rockets that are sometimes better and easier to use in at least that mode if not others? I get the MiG-29N likely should stay a fighter, I don’t know enough about the SU-30MKM as to if it really makes sense to make it a Strike aircraft as well, but the 2 seater F-18 is great for it, and Japan could really use a strike aircraft at the higher tiers… and the tiers in between that need filling. And in other areas you’ve kind of abolished just having a national sub tree, and it’s already kinda broken up in Japan (in a really weird way) - but if you make the F/A-18D a strike here, move the A-7 and AV-8 over, move the Alpha Jets and F-84 over to the bomber line - much as that leaves some gaps in the fighter lines - which I’m pretty sure other things can fill those gaps and not like the current setup doesn’t leave massive ones, you actually have generally a full line for the bombers that transitions to strike aircraft. Which - is consistent with every other national line other than Germany (where the heavy fighter line becomes strikes and bombers become Swiss), China (has nothing in the bomber line above Rank 5) and Israel is a 50/50 as the line with 2 bombers does end in a Strike Eagle variant but jumps to fighters in between (and with the other strike aircraft that could be there not in it but the other fighter line). And if the 29 and 30 stay as fighters - can always move them to the line that previously had the R2Y2’s - so that all 5 lines actually have high rank vehicles, and just fill in the rest later as was going to happen anyway.
Also, not knowing it’s Arcade BR off hand (everything I see I think is using RB), but the two seater F/A-18’s (‘missionized’ B, D, F) if put in as strike aircraft actually give the Naval/Strike line not only some more options, but potentially fill some gaps the US has in it’s line up between 11.7 and 14.0 in Air Arcade, especially in adding Supersonic aircraft in a BR range where it takes forever and a day to even get to the targets on certain maps in sub-sonic vehicles like the AV-8 and A-10.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT any info to share about Sweden ? Everyone getting AESA radars and sweden still without nothing