You do get that Gaijin has been sitting on various accepted reports that would significantly improve the performance of a multitude of characteristics across a broad range of relevant stores, yes?
This isn’t even all of them, only the ones I had to hand, and am keeping track personally. It should be self evident that historic reports are used to “supplement” balancing, to allow for performance adjustments to occur outside the regular balancing passes. Not as a first-in, first-out Triaged queuing system like one would expect with a properly functioning reporting scheme in most cases.
“Not a bug.
These are inert AGM-65s (blue strips around missile), combat AGM-65s loaded on the LAU-88 cannot be hung next to the LITENING in order to avoid damage the optics by engine flame.”
Where pictorial evidence was refused, because of all things they were inert, which is far greater evidence of it being possible then a mockup, but well that’s what we get.
Further many aircraft are missing targeting pods (e.g. US F-4E / F-16A), and they could in effect appear as low as ~8.0 (possibly lower if the ALD was modeled, but as it was hand held it’s unlikely ) with the addition of the B-75G Tropic Moon III, to the B-57B, the first such aircraft to be capable of self-designation for laser guided PGMs / cannons (program, “PAVE GAT”, a laser directed M197).
press x to doubt. russian players in general don’t seem to complain more nor less than others, and some sure didn’t appreciate when i spawn camped their doom machine (KH slinger) with AAMs in ground RB, while they had R-77-1 on their own.
That’s not how it works for modifications: when a mod is removed, rp/golden/ SL are recreddited and that’s it. I’m not sure they could make a modification available for some and not for the other while vehicle can.
Anyway if the weapon doesn’t exist it shouldn’t be in game. Br can be adjusted if needed, Grom 1 could be re-added if needed… But same rules is to be applied: not produced or tested (let alone tested on the airframe) then it shouldn’t be in game
Not gonna lie - Su-34 is one of my most favourite planes even without Kh-38MT. I have those missiles but I never used it because no need. Groms or UMPK can solve most of targets which I attack on safe distance of 30 km.
su34 has one of the best radars in the game and the r77 is fine for ground rb, the only problem with the su34 as a dogfighting platform is the lack of an hmd system as the airframe retains a great deal of maneuverability. You painting it as anything other than an S tier aircraft is frankly hilarious. Also the lack of a thermal pod isn’t even a problem because I’m supposed to believe they found it more cost effective to just attach it to the missile. (kh38mt)
BTW to elaborate on why I included the J-11B in the screenshot:
K/JDC03A is AFAIK the latest Chinese targeting pod (or at least a very recent one).
So it kinda doesn’t make sense that it would have less resolution than Kh-38MT (Especially given that China is ahead in terms of fabrication of electronics and imaging sensors etc).
Cons aren’t an opinion based system.
Is having a 15s reload instead of 8 a con ?
Is having 20 HP/t instead 30 a con ?
Is not having thermals over having them a con ?
It might be in that tier because of the AGM and it’s definitely not there because of it’s A2A capabilities. It’s placement in ARB tells you more than enough about it’s capabilities in air, which are further diminished in GRB due to the nature of the mode.
uhuh, its kinda in the name strikecraft, and you also act like the Su34 doesnt have one of the best radars in the game with a missile that does fine in the small maps of GRB, compared that to say the tornado Gr4 or the Mirage-2000D-RMV that have worse A2G loadouts AND only 2 IR missiles and they sit a whole .3 of a br lower in GRB
How long is this going to go on? I have setup the watching on this thread so i can get relevant information on kh-38mt and yet every time i get a notification it’s about something that has nothing to do with the kh-38mt
You do notice that Con’s were not what I specified? Yes.
but ok, as a general overview of the capstone options for the US tree, which is realty the only one I have experience with and so what I can fairly well go into detail on;
F-14B, not much really needs to be said that the AIM-9L, AIM-54 & AWG-9 has obvious issues in A2A combat vs contemporary 13.0+ airframes. Let alone that the TCS doesn’t do anything useful, and it also lacks IIR- ordnance. So has obvious deficiencies in both the A2A & A2G roles much of which comes from mismodeling and so is effectively outdone by other airframes.
F-15C, BVR is ok, at best though as normal with AMRAAM equipt fighters it’s fairly pedestrian and average for the higher tier US options, Also that with the late engine F-15E being an option makes it near entirely redundant in all respects, especially for a set of crafted 12.7+ lineups where the only outcome is limiting the potential occurrence of down-tiers.
F-15E, Lacks an edge in AoA vs contemporaries but has a significant energy retention / generation advantage so effectively pigeon holes it opposite the F/A-18C / F-16C, in terms of engagement blueprint, being restricted to the AIM-9M also causes issues in a dogfight due to the lack of HOBS / short range, low speed performance vs TVC missiles against non-Sidewinder equipt opponents. though outside that is probably the most well rounded A2G option the US has against the static AI target set, due to A2G radar modes / TGP, & SDB-I permitting rapid ingress / egress and in a higher threat environment where the A-10C’s lack of speed / climb causes issues though trades off sheer magazine depth per flyout in exchange also the arbitrarily ability to load stores onto the CFT individually, and arbitrary illegal configurations vastly constrains the ability to partially load the F-15E up and as such optimize it on a per flyout basis, also the erroneous lack of countermeasures under the Navigation pod and the absence of pentation aids like the ALE-58 (LAU-138, BOL rails), MJU-13 / -17, using generic countermeasures and the TEWS / EPAWSS pod / ALQ-127 also heavily limits survivability.
F-16C, serves a a fairly well balanced intermediate between the F-15C and F/A-18C, but as with the F-15E / F-4E / F-14A etc. Is arbitrarily held to a fairly non-specific Franken-plane configuration and the inability to properly model the Flight control schema and needing to power creep the F-16A-10 lead to issues. Also the erroneous inability to carry non-fuel stores on the inner wing station also heavily constrains the A2G magazine depth.
F/A-18C as we have yet another Franken-plane with limited stores issues arise as to why you would fly it out over the F-15E o F-16C as the lacking top speed, and standard A2A options don’t lend well to BVR performance, A2G options are also constrained (which will be partially addressed if we ever receive the F/A-18E or -F) and as such in a dogfight the sub-par performance of the AIM-9M / AIM-120 practically ensures that the best you can do is trade if you get singled out in a fight since limited energy state you need to be in for max performance really limits offensive options, or the ability for you missiles to run down targets.
Were there any other airframes that you had questions about?
