Duct loss report Accepted
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VoI1epg1Xk11
10 days to forward for review, wow
would have been longer if I hadn’t asked a techmod to look at it specifically
Why can they just retexture the RB28 and copy paste it onto the F-102A, then make a radar guided version with the same flight model. Boom, AIM-4D and AIM-4A.
Right?, I seriously don’t understand what the devs are thinking at all times it’s seemingly such an easy fix yet they basically argue in bug reports and give stupid reasons for their decisions.
Another important feature is the logic behind the infrared seekers on guided missiles. Currently, they are guided to the geometric center of the aircraft, which can result in ineffective hits on large aircraft (likely hitting an empty fuselage section). We plan to change this logic so that the infrared seekers are guided to the hot engine area, which will make the missiles’ impact on the aircraft more localized and, for larger aircraft, more lethal.
Unfortunately, there are no mentions of fixes for radar-guided missiles like the AIM-4F and the upcoming AIM-4A.
Edit: He responded. They are looking into the radar-guided Falcon.
Yippeee!!
Will wait until this actually makes it to the live, before striking it, though it is on the WiP client right now
not that it really matters because the AIM-4As and AIM-4D arent on the F-102 yet
at least itll be slightly better bait now
You damn right even if they buff the performance of the plane it wont matter as long the armaments are not accurate to its intendent use. If the F102 has the AIM4D than the Aim4G I still have better firing envelop than the Aim4g as the Rb28 a copy of the Aim4D has faster speed on the rail and less smoke due to having a single booster unlike the Aim4G which is too smokey and and accelerate like a Aim54A phoenix.
the issue with the AIM-4Gs is less that they are all that bad (I make pretty good use of them on the F-106) because they pull hard off the rail when launched above mach 1, but their track rate is inaccurate and they are basically all sustainer engine. I think they are overall less draggy than the AIM-4D despite the mass increase but when on a slower platform like the F-102, they are inferior in every way. gaijin refuses to even model the limited all aspect capability of the AIM-4G/D (and the red top for that matter!)
You’d expect an uniform thrust increase at all speeds and altitudes considering they claimed the problem was channel loss in afterburner, but they decided to selectively tweak thrust only at lower speeds and high altitudes. The only way this makes sense (seriously, a turbojet losing thrust going from a dead stop to 200 km/h?) is if they are holding the F102 to some arbitrary reference performance numbers and are tweaking the thrust to get them instead of getting the thrust right and correcting the flight model.
But to be fair, at this point the flight model is the least of the F-102’s problems…
this one is fixed
Updated, along with other reports
This issues persist to the Lightning F6 and the Sea Vixen both armed a Redtop Missile with all aspect capability if the target is near transonic or in Mach 1 due to the air friction but gaijin selective realism. the saving grace of the Redtop is its massive 31 kg (68.3 lb) warhead and proxy fuze will instant delete a fighter.
But not a bomber anymore… despite that being the only target the red top was really meant for
hell both AIM4 and the Red Top had good seekers for its time has 90 degrees if you slaving it to the radar or IRST on the F102A and the F106A but both plague with bad flight kinematics due to gaijin selective realism.
I wish air RB encouraged more high altitude stuff
its a lot of fun coming in at mach 1.3 in the F-106 and watching the AIM-4G moving like an R-60
just wish it chased the tail rather than the aircraft model
If AIM-4C is inferior to AIM-4G, then why add RB 28 to J35 which has 9P-3??
dont forget AIM-4D is literally just RB28