Here’s a video of their use from 2021:
(8) Video | Facebook
That is infact not a separate road base but a strip of highway right next to the airbase (peace time civilian airport) to use for example if the runway is bombed.
1 Like
Personally, I think it should be the community, with oversight and actual implementation considerations from the coders and such. The current model of them just adding things that they think their players will like isn’t really great and the whole suggestions category is a joke.
It should be a complementary arrangement. For example, I’d be more than happy to not receive new stuff for a few patches if it meant fixing what we currently have, padding out the tech trees and decompressing battles. It’s absurd to me that we have 14.0 for air (which could be decompressed further) but only 12.0 for ground which seriously needs increasing.
All I’m asking is that the community gets some say in it, contrary to popular belief (not implying you, but you know who) we’re not all just mindless wallets.
4 Likes
I mean i think the community has a pretty good opinion but the devs dont care.
Sadly, Yeah… Of course, they will.
I am sure they are awaiting the Finnish player
- Grind the same F-18C twice and pay some GE during that
- or quit maining sweden and pre-order F/A-18C early for grind US TT from beginning for F/A-18C Late.
:/
3 Likes
No, no, no.
They aren’t even going to give us the F-18 MLU-1 what is the first true Finnish hornet…
They just are going to give us the pre-MLU (Lisence build no modifications) and then the F/A-18 MLU-2 what brings A2G capabilities.
And the reason for all of this?: “We wan’t to make unique planes…” There’s nothing unique about the pre-MLU Hornet. It’s only A2A version of the F/A-18 C (Ingame F/A-18C Early) and it’s the same plane configuration that the swiss used.
IF they just gave Finland the F-18C MLU-1 (Still only A2A) it would be more in line for the reasons they gave us for the pre MLU plane.
TBF I don’t know if they are planning to make the MLU-1 Squadron vehicle same way than the thai F-5.
But that’s just me quessing.
2 Likes
I know I have voiced unpopular opinions in this thread before, and will for sure face strong headwind with this again, but:
I personally find the notion of “they’re skipping thisandat variant” quite irrelevant, as WT never intended to be complete in this regard. Otherwise we’d have a gazillion more for example F-16’s only in the US, and many other countries as well.
So, the fact that the variant that is added now and the variant that seems to be planned for the future “skip” other variants/MLU’s I think should be of little concern.
What I find a valid concern however is the BR placement of the Finnish F/A-18, but I find all Hornets are in a bit of a trifficult spot in this regard - or better put, the whole top tier is a tricky environment BR-wise atm and again should be decompressed more.
4 Likes
It’s not even about skipping a variant, it’s about why make one techtree worse when you could give them unique but with same A2A capabilities. I just don’t get the reason what we got (no copy paste) when the MLU-1 would’t be copy paste and it would be unique and more suitable version of the F-18 A2A only version of the hornet. I wouldn’t mind them skipping the pre MLU version or making it squadron vehicle (Swedish tech tree dosn’t have one) I just would like to know why we are getting treated as not irrelevant in this matter.
5 Likes
It’s not about minor or major nations, it’s about export users getting better variants than the original operators for no reason- that’s what the F-15E drama was about.
I still remember when Swedish players also “cRiEd” about Sweden getting JAS-39A while others got JAS-39C. Are we going to forget that now?
Both cases were equally as valid- an export user should never get a better variant of a vehicle before the original operator- but for some reason there’s only such disrespect when talking about “US mains”.
3 Likes
So we aren’t allowed to request parity even in only one aspect of the platform and instead must be given objectively worse even in a single role? Even without the A2G, this platform is worse than the equivalent American platform, at the same BR. Should we allow only parity when the yanks want something from a minor nation instead of parity across the board?
Keep in mind, the Gripen C to Sweden came after multiple nations got it. And I think everyone remembers just how irksome that was. It is less than adequate to receive something deliberately degraded, when there’s a variant that maintains just as competent air to air, minus the air to ground.
People aren’t even asking for better than the yanks. They’re asking for parity, which is easily achieved through a different version. Yet apparently, it’s only okay for the Americans to seek parity. A lot of people aren’t even seeking parity across the board, but parity in the a2a role. Would you say that’s too much to ask?
I reiterate; asking for a better F/A-18C to be on par with the others is perfectly valid.
Just as valid as it was to ask for a better JAS-39 to be on par with the others.
JUST AS VALID as it was to ask for F-15E not to be worse than its export variants.
I don’t understand why on every topic “Americans”, “U.S mains”, “Yanks” must be brought up in despective manners just because they got the result that everyone deserves.
Don’t be angry at U.S for getting fair treatment- be angry at Gaijin for not giving said fair treatment to others.
5 Likes
Yanks are often to blame for ahistorical deficiencies in platforms when they were relatively on parity with documentation, on account of dodgy bug reports because “something is a ufo” (when it matches documentation for the most part) whilst ignoring their own issues that don’t match documentation. I would wager that’s why many have hard feelings towards them. Also doesn’t help they constantly say others shouldn’t get improvement because “we didn’t get it” (currently very obvious regarding R77-1). You tend to get bitter at that.
Though I will give them credit, in this thread they’ve tended to avoid the “You shouldn’t get it” aspect.
I am 90% asleep writing these things, so excuse the poor formatting and/or wording.
idk if this was here in earlier dev server versions, but they changed the engines to have more thrust on the F-18C
Produces about 373 kgf more (spaded) thrust per engine than the F/A-18C Late, it’s also still ~600 kg lighter. Probably not enough to offset the lack of HMD however, but it’s something. Not sure if this is intended however because they still have the same engines.
EDIT: seems to be a bug in the numbers in X-ray and modifications tab
I’m sitting on a few (pre-written) reports that would constitute (fairly wide ranging) nerfs simply because either the features are edge cases, would have little impact, or hang on additional mechanization to be faithfully implemented, but would effectively require bespoke implementation (even if it could be replicated using / inverting existing characteristics).
Part of that I’m sure is that occasionally you get stuff like;
What they are referring to is that, this;
The issue
is actually a scan of the page that the document is actually referencing, also worth noting that the red square in the latter blatantly references a “IR/TV sensor”
Which had me go find yet more sources, (correctly attribute the “problem” excerpt) and re-make the report, improving the clarity.
[DEV]The F-14B should be impacted by this change to IRST/EOTS
Of which, the former was closed in under an hour. With the remade report still open after (going on) four days. It really does sometimes feel like certain things get slow rolled sometimes. I now somewhat doubt that it’s going to be actioned by the time the update goes live.
Alternately
you get wildly confusing responses like;
[DEV]The ASQ-228 ATFLIR should be impacted by this change toIRST
The AAS-38B does not exist in the game. Also, there is no mention of an air-to-air radar slave mode. This is not the same as air-to-air tracking.
I literally have no clue where they found a reference to the AAS-38B, as it’s not even mentioned once. Also it is blatantly clear that the moderator didn’t even try looking at the attached documentation because.
enables the ATFLIR to simultaneously track several moving targets. The benefits of this capability have been proven by radar. In addition to the stand-alone benefit to ATFLIR, Target track information can be shared between multiple other sensors on the F/A-18 by communication over the high speed Fiber Channel Network to provide further enhancements.
Is literally a direct quote from the document.
Aye, meant it more as a generalisation that yanks are happy to ignore the issues, not that every soul who plays America is happy to ignore overperformance, or only note favourable inaccuracies.
As with every tree, there are people who ignore issues, and people who report them even if they cause a nerf. Yanks just seem to have a hell of a lot more of the former than the latter compared to most the rest of the trees. Which bleeds into them occasionally putting up reports that sabotage other trees inaccurately because they found a document or two of poor provenance.
If Gaijin was really concerned about historical accuracy and uniqueness they wouldn’t make you grind the unhistorical AIM-9Ls which is far from a unique experience
For example take the F-16’s FBW system, with it’s current implementation allowing it to “perform better than it should”. While It’s true, but only if you strictly take it at face value and test specific scenarios.
We literally have a Block diagram for the combined AoA & G- limiter (that would permit near perfect replication of the actual system), but the issue is that, as can be seen below its simply got too many feedback loops & I/O channels to be faithfully modeled, especially with the way that the instructor would need to (somehow, I really do not envy whatever intern gets lumped with implementing it) interface with “mouse control” inputs. While remaining flyable. which would need lots of work fine tuning the output not not much actual benefit.
This is true of a number of issues, but has really been magnified by moving into fairly modern (and prototype) territory, where documentation gets fairly limited, thus gaijin tends to start relying on basically anything they can find and it becomes near impossible to find corroborating sources.
Except we do often find the sources that show performance that are consistent with each other, and someone shows up with a document from a competitor (as an example from the top of my head) that claims it is worse and they go with that one instead of the stash of documents showing better stats.
But being bitter at this hour is tedious and derails the thread. I am going to take a nap, or at least make the attempt.
Completely wrong.
Ill answer your question, how many air squadron vehicles are only .3 below the current top tier bracket? MLU 1 is better than the 1994 model hornet so unless you want a MLU 1 when F-35 and Su-57 and UFO’s are here you’re going to be waiting a very very long time.
Honestly im suprised you dont see the bigger problem considering your view of the Swiss Hornet. How would you feel if they just decided to skip the upgraded version of the Swiss Hornet? You get the model that the Fins use currently (hypothetical) and then you’re still placed at the same poorly thought out BR. The whole reason gaijin wont back down on the BR is because they dont want to add the Gripen NG/E cause then people will stop playing the airtree. The F-18 has to be the bandaid to fill the missing 14.0 so in the snails infinite wisdom they have alienated the FINNISH Hornet, for a US export model which fails to fix the air tree because the Gripen is better while being at a better BR. Gaijin openly ignoring adding a Finnish hornet is the problem and then also telling us that they only want the US model to be usable is just pathetic. Im sorry but the balance to keep the OCU and F-18C at their respective BR is coming from a clown. (Though its more so because the snail refuses to decompress things. Hell the prior BR changes just undid the decompression we did 6 months ago.)