It’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the difference between a mere critical hit and severe damage.
A target taking a direct hit from an Aim-9 or AMRAAM, and falling from the sky in a giant fireball is a mere critical hit?
A direct hit will destroy the plane outright and send the player directly back to the hangar. What you and luque are describing are near misses where the proxy fuse disables many of the plane’s control surfaces and engines. There is a huge difference between the two.
You may not agree with the severe damage mechanic, but trying to call it an exploit is as outrageous as calling ground players exploiters when they unrealistically repair battle damage in seconds. The game makes a clear distinction between immediately killed targets and severely damaged ones that potentially still have teeth. You need to learn to respect the threat of targets that aren’t quite dead yet.
I have seen targets take direct impacts from missiles before and been largely unaffected. A near hit knocking out a control surface or engine wont cause the airframe to fall out the sky uncontrollably and even if it could still physically fire, the pilot should be totally disorientated to be able to fire. It is unrealistic
I have no issue with it. Just saying we need new damage models for a number of reasons and that could include new internal modules that if destroyed would prevent the use of any weapons.
No, the example would be if helis that were “dead” were still able to fly and shoot. Oh wait, they use to be able to, they literally had to patch that and add new heli damage models to fix that.
If I put 1 or more missiles into a target and its falling from the sky as a burning hulk and the game has said “Target killed” then the last thing I would expect from it is a R-77 or R-73. But unless the pilot is killed, you are not instantly booted from the aircraft
If your engines are on fire and your aircraft is unable to generate lift…Why would the weapon systems work??
As I said dude enjoy your exploits and when other nations start to get similar missiles maybe the F-15EX with 12+ 120C5s ripples the lot off on you after you “severly” damaged his airframe.
You will recall this conversation
It’s 12, not 12+. Boeings own website states 12 missiles.
1 Like
They have been testing launches from the rear angled pylons.
12+ is accurate for now
double racks are in development for them, so can be more like 16 or maybe even more at some point
I’ve heard up to 22-24.
Uh… For now, Id guess 16, I really cant imagine it is worth hauling that many just because of the sheer weight and drag it would cause.
I also want to say I recall something about that fit being intended purely for transporting the AMRAAMs or something and they cant be used to fire them
Personally I’d rather see Gaijin model redundant flight controls before modelling stuff to make aircraft even more fragile. It is ridiculous at a single 50 cal round hitting the flight controls is enough to make you lose all tail control in something like a Tornado. IRL the Tornado had triple (in some parts quadruple) redundant fly by wire system, and backup mechanical linkages which engaged in the event of catastrophic damage to the FBW system.
4 Likes
But that is exactly the kind of thing id include in a model overhaul.
Massively increase the fidelity.
- add new modules
- add redundant system modeling
- and break the airframe into smaller parts (no more heavy bomber tail being a single part for example)
Its actually a notable flaw of the A-10C and likely other jets with redundant flight controls. Thr triple redundant flight control size is modelled, but theyre all modelled as one, so it actually ends up making it easier to destroy the module than on jets without redundant systems…
1 Like
The radar and fire control systems aren’t stored in the engines. It’s that simple. Again I recommend that you read gaijin’s article on the difference between vehicle destruction and severe damage. That will clear some things up.
The energy for these systems still needs to come from somewhere, and I doubt the batteries can sustain a radar for any even remotely long amount of time
1 Like
Note temperature and conditions can effect top speed significantly.
That is not a 15e that is a picture of a proposed upgrade package for the f15c that nobody bought
Look at the cockpit it is a single seater
2 Likes
its genuinely amazing that like 5 people managed to completely misunderstand him at such a fundamental level. This forum has a massive problem with reading comprehension.
2 Likes
the whole thing that started this chain of you being a massive brick wall to talk to, is me describing fights where someone i cut in half with the Rafale’s 30 mm canon firing HE shells at supersonic speeds is still firing fucking r73’s while im trying to dogfight the inevitable little shit who tries to third party.
A plane completely bricked with 30 mm holes all over the place is unlikely to be able to do anything, and a pilot would EJECT, if that ever happened irl, the moment a pilot sees hes about to get fucked by canon fire they eject to avoid getting turned into tomato sauce.
1 Like
Both are ugly ah