Wait, so YF-16 couldn’t use sparrows?
In other words: We can build a 4002020 ton tank, so lets add it into the game since its possible.
1 Like
From what i can tell the company created the “shell” but no info on the seeker in the front though which was the one i was referring to in that conversation. (funnily enough though the mockup-company titles it as MTE but writes “inertial + semi-active laser” as guidance lol)
2 Likes
At base it couldn’t, but it was modified to be able to use them, additionally gaining landing gear door pylons for them to be mounted on. On this test all 8 pylons could be used for mounting sparrows. However no more then 2 on a wing at a time, i believe due to structural reasons, for a theortical total of 6x sparrows and 2x sidewinders, a much much better loadout then the F-16AJ gets in game of 2 sparrows 4 sidewinders, and one i really wish they’d add for it.
1 Like
I am not saying that that should be the standard. He says that the Tiger II 10,5 wouldn’t have worked (based on what, Idk), so it should not be added. I am asking him if it could be made to work, then should it be implemented?
From my point of view, it doesn’t matter whether you have to fully reconstruct a turret/breach or make an imaginary seeker-head.
And why didn’t you explain it to me, are you hiding behind other people’s backs? But at the same time you consider other people’s opinions to be true without even understanding them?
The developer said that he changed the flight model using video materials, he didn’t say anything about other sources.
And I saw this bug report and there were other sources, but these sources (brochures) cannot be official documentation for changing the flight model.
Why?
Remember the attempts to change the Su-27 flight model, where the developer needed an official source (Su-27SK RLE), but they didn’t even consider this source to be correct.
Because they saw a no-name flight manual for the Su-27, which was actually a T-10, because the aircraft’s weight was incorrect, the R-60 was in the weapons nomenclature, etc.
It was very difficult for us to explain this to them, but they then changed the flight model of the Su-27 even without a link to the bug report. (Ru forum)
1 Like
Who is this “developer”? What’s their name. Do they work on FM changed by themselves? Do they work in a group? Is there more checks in the background behind closed doors? All of this is by Eye, there is no definitive proof bruh.
ppl have found the T-10 flightmanual and performance data,
and it more or less performed exactly like the Su-27 we had in game
(thats my understanding of that situation)
Yea I get you, but this game is trying to be a “realistic” one.
1 Like
It shouldn’t be implemented because it is fake and it wouldn’t have worked anyways
If they have to make up new turret or breech designs to make it work it’s pure fantasy again, and no better than WoT
Most likely why the original news article about it thought it was SALH tbh, which doesnt exactly inspire confidence in the existence of the MTE imo…
1 Like
The community bug manager contacted the developer personally, he asked the developer about the Su-27 FM and passed the information to us.
The developer is Gaijin. This is not 1 person.
Wow dude. Answer my message completely. I pointed out obvious facts to you, but you were worried about one thing - the developer.
I probably now understand why you didn’t explain to me about the bug report about Rafale
so it’s a “he said, she said” deal oki
Will you answer this message in full? Or do you have no arguments?
no they requested the documentation gaijin used for the Su-27 FM
and it turned out to be the flight data of the T-10 which dosent even look close to the production Su-27
9 Likes
link proof or didn’t happen. Simple. Also this is a KH-38MT thingy, not a Su-27 thingy.
They are not fake because they were all partially designed/built. Even if they were 100% fake, there are plenty of ways that things that are fake in WT.
Based on what? If they are willing to say that the Kronshtadt or Ho-Ri Production would have worked if XYZ, then we can also assume that the incompleted vehicles would have worked based on XYZ (e.g. strengthened turret ring, adjustments to the mantlet/breach, etc. etc.).
Not really. War Thunder is mechanically better than WoT. Further, the tanks are not pure fantasy…
Basic thinking and dimensions
KH-38MT, Ho-Ri need to be fully removed
Naval follows a different set of rules so it’s dumb to bring it as an example
1 Like
Thats even funnier.
Ppl contacted some of devs via CBRs.
Funny thats theres was some Ralin’s messages long time ago, asking to elaborate/discuss/etc ghraps of same source
Horrid examples, WT naval has a different standard for additions (keel laid minimum), and the Ho-Ri production is slated for removal when they find a suitable replacement, iirc it was also added under the assumption it was real, mistakenly-so.
7 Likes