That only works if Soviet stuff is the only thing to be inaccurate in a beneficial way, for which they haven’t since Mig-23MLD for exactly one major update before USA had equivalent aircraft and better aircraft were added.
Gaijin wasn’t as knowledgeable on BR placement prior to development back then and that’s a lesson they thankfully learned for future additions… though we did have one major update where USA, Japan, and Israel had the only top BR aircraft before everyone else got options, but that’s a tangent.
@Farlexgamer_psn
Nothing is artificially nerfed.
Mig-29’s flight model currently matches charts.
The thrust curve could be better and more in-line with the anti-FOD device opening, which would improve performance above those speeds.
Though that’s a separate conversation for another topic.
Kh-38MT’s existence is in question, and there’s no evidence posted in either direction proving anything for it.
MICA and BVR in the same sentence is very questionable lmao, even with Rafale having absurd performance rn MICA is still hard limited to 50km max kinematic range and server wiggles cut that down significantly
I use the kh29s on my su25, two guaranteed kills with them, fire then on the way in usually between 5km and 12km out and.
Then i either swap to KABs or S250s and go to town.
The type 81s actually my nemisis as you dont get an rwr warnijg for it so gotta make sure you keep your eyes open.
The KH29s are actually strong but balanced missiles.imho the KH38T is just overkill
thats what happens when there is a competent defence industry. meanwhile non-existent IR Kh-38 is given to USSR, tell me who gets the more preferential treatment
Type 81 is nasty against KH-29 slingers as it can lock the plane before the 29 can track lock it in return.
Any ordnance that can establish track lock at 10km+ is too much for the game, and of course for ground players.
Revealing look into the mind of Russian CAS users. What is CCRP? What are GPS guided munitions?
NATO CAS users have to get used to using CCRP against SAMs they can’t otherwise defeat as low as the F-4E. I’m not remotely worried about a Type 81, unless it spawns while I’m in the middle of a CAS run. If there’s one up when I’m starting, it’s not a big problem. Gotta attack in a smart way, is all.
I already stated the condition.
FnF missiles with such track range should be deleted immediately for the health of ground players. Either that or give us TO mode to play in peace.
so this is suddenly an issue when its looking like the KH-38MT isnt real? I also dunno if im just lucky or not but ive seen like next to no CAS at top tier besides the KH-38MT
Do I at all need to point out that Western IR MANPADs, are (still) not modeled properly even though Multiple Primary documents were presented that would otherwise be sufficient, in fact their original implementation was closer than how it remains to this day.
“Igla”, “Stinger” and “Mistral” missiles - corrected flight performance and seeker parameters: engine thrust has been increased, lateral acceleration has been decreased.
“Will be fixed in 2.31.1.63+
Max overload will be 13 G.”
Here is an 8 month old (since it was accepted) report providing fairly exacting detail as to where they went wrong in their assumptions. And yet they remain having done nothing outwards.
At least with the fact that new SAMs are headlining the next update there is a slight chance that it gets implemented, among various other reports to overhaul the FIM-92’s performance.
Western manpads perform better than Soviet manpads, so it doesn’t prove anything. [In-game obviously.]
Soviet manpads also don’t over-perform.
For there to be nation bias, a tech tree has to be given something that no other tech tree has of equal or greater capability, especially if inaccurate.
And Kh-38MT’s seeker according to brochures is equally over-performing as Hammer’s IR seeker.
Before Hammer? Maybe, but we had no evidence it was over-performing prior to Hammer’s addition cause this is the first topic that found how Kh-38MT’s seeker is supposed to allegedly function.
We cannot apply newly discovered knowledge in blaming past decisions as that would be bad-faith.
Nowhere in the MANPDS article does it actually establish similar functionality between the two and as such why the lower limit should also apply to said designs.
Of course outside the fact that they look similar.
Do I have to point out that this was about artificial Nerfs. And that the Strela-10M2 also existed at similar Battle Ratings, unlike the Tan-SAM (at the time), and so unless deliberately dragged up by a lineup would be unlikely to match together.
So is every non-CCD, imaging seeker AGM-65 has access to, I’m working on a report but it’s slow going with motivation being fairly fleeting, when other avenues to address the issue take as long as they have.
This has effectively previously been settled, all Contrast and Correlation type seekers and their differences are being ignored for gaming convention and balance, and have been for a while now
We absolutely can when they ignore presented sources and have to fabricate reasons why they are doing what they are doing. Don’t forget that the Original Nerf in 1.97 is completely unsourced, we don’t even know why it was changed in the first place or what it was based off.
