I dont recall. Only difference is that we have British bombs in the form of the Mk13, but thats the only difference in terms of loadout.
I’m trying to remember but it was so long ago. It was during the dev server, all 3 had the same loadouts but the devs removed them after someone posted a photo of I think the Italian version that didn’t have the bombs listed.
Probably the Mk13s vs Mk83s. Only Britain uses the Mk13s on the Tornado. Was a contenious issue IRL for Panavia iirc
We are using it in trials.
Well yes CR3 isn’t in service yet, so neither is it’s intended round (DM63). Why would we have a round in service which no tank currently in service can use?
Which one?
Also trials huh… rules for thee not for me (lol).
3 Likes
Guys can we just stop this bickering with each other it dosnt get us anywhere.
Also stop trying to bait/trigger people.
The Eurofighter community should stand united and help eachother to better the aircraft for all.
My suggestion if they dont accept that the MK 1 has 200x200 search radius then give the German EF the MK 0 that they are supposedly use since 2023 as an interim solution.
12 Likes
the niche playstye of uhh… being able to hold a perfect DL lock on a notch? and how big AMK is depends on how gaijin interprets it, could just be a couple more Gs at high speed which wont make it much better
2 Likes
Yeah, you aren’t even able to notch every missile coming your way in a furball anyways.
AMK as described in this post is definitely a much better boon to have.
MK.0 is a GaA radar tho which would mean worse effective range of detection, so idk if it’s a good trade lmao.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Yes, we should unite and demand that gaijin correctly develop the Typhoon. Regarding the mk1 and mk2, I think mk1 can be stronger than mk2 in other aspects to balance the missing 10° search angle, and the weapons and AMK that the Typhoon can carry should be shared by all Typhoons.
4 Likes
Unlikely, as they (Mk. 2 > Mk 1, and it’s not close. At all) use entirely different technologies.
1 Like
Mk.1 has repeatedly been stated to be superior in normal radar applications, and worse in EW. The different countries just have different priorities. Only because Mk.1 is called one and not two doesn’t mean it’s worse, they’re just different radars
4 Likes
with that reasoning you might as well argue radar performance doesnt matter cuz of 16v16, which is obviously not true
Mk2 is also part GaA and Gajin hasnt modelled that
1 Like
Why should they? The games “simulation” is way too shallow for that to matter in any way, so it doesn’t make a difference ingame if the transceivers are made of Si, SiC, GaAs, GaN or even the experimental AlN or exotic InP. It shouldn’t even matter in a more complex simulation as you only need the signal-strength, -agility, -frequency/bandwidth and -quality, not the way it is generated or in short: Everything that comes out of the radar, not what happens inside the radar.
yep, thats my point.
They dont model it so Mk.0 would be of the same performance, except it gains 10° of FoR
The benefits of the Mk.1, be it the improved signal strength of GaN or the improved SAR mode, simply dont exist ingame
2 Likes
It’s a shame that gaijin doesn’t care about what’s being discussed here.
Im new here in that threat. What source have gajin that the mk1 have only 90 and not 100
