Then don’t move the goalposts from manufacturer to air force/country.
It is vehicle and weapon manufacturers that dictate loadouts, not countries and air forces; Manufacturers do the programming and compatibility testing.
Keep claiming that Israel Aircraft Industries are lying about their own aircraft, all your post is doing is making your username look bad by doing that.
Gaijin needs to add red zones to make up for their failing map design.
Why does no one understand that red zones can be good???
Or players could try and adapt to map designs, learn to (protect the) flank and look around… instead of getting crutches via red zones, progressively smaller tunnel map designs, etc.
Best regards,
Phil
Because they are BAD!
Gaijin is introducing new bugs faster then they are fixing them.
But worry not, update quota for the “new” vehicles will be met, even if they have to copy paste them (with bugs).
Sometimes I wonder if Gaijin has QA or internal testing.
From another thread:
Sounds about right.
It is not secret that Gaijin bought IL2 engine from 1C and build Birds of Prey and subsequently the WT in it.
Many things in WT behaves exactly the same like in two decades old IL2, so most likely the core of the game still runs on the old Il2 code.
As result we can’t have regenerative steering or working top attack missiles due to engine limitations.
[INFO] Blocked loading of file: “F:\WarThunder\WarThunder\win64\aces.exe”.
So now thanks to this great update I have to launch straight through the Aces file cause the launcher gets stopped otherwise by Battleeye
APKWS is laser guided, isn’t it?
Blocking out spawn camping and other unbalanced spots isn’t bad.
True, but should still be able to use it as unguided rocket
Yes
I would like to ask what gaijin’s definition of “game-breaking” includes as some things have different meanings for players or for gaijin.
As i met you some time ago (a part of the Mod squadron) in Air RB (in a P-63 iirc) you might agree, that especially at prop tiers we see a hell of guys which see full-committed head-ons as valid game strategy.
So if a certain weapon (like the MG 151/20) becomes due to a wrong implemented modification way less effective than others (in head-ons and long range shots) this looks like game-breaking for players - at least for those with the now weaker weapon.
Therefore i can not understand why this bug report (link) is not processed - even as gaijin was informed 10 months ago with a similar report (also not processed) about the underlying issue.
Is there anything we can do as players if we see such things?
A short reply would be appreciated!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
F-4J(UK) wants to discuss about losing AIM-7F when she was using it back in the USN days.
Oh, Don’t forget about JAS39C(SAAF) which has no A2A weapons historically she used it SA but got some missiles thanks to SAAB
Gaijin is tight-roping between both the Manufacturer standards and the Air Force arsenal
And cherry-picking whichever they want.
USAF F-5A/C was retired earlier than the introduction of CM pods on F-5 variants but granted because there are much of F-5 which got those upgrades.
At the same time, there is no AIM-9E on the French F-100D or no AIM-7F on the F-4J(UK), even though cousins from the US can.
Because Gaijin wants to rant minor-mains.
I am well aware and trying to understand your point
(Even though I am quite disagreeing with your idea)
It would be great if Gaijin don’t bullshit with their standards.
I think it is just contradicted.
The manufacturer of F-5A explicitly says that there’s wiring capability for countermeasures, which means the F-5C as well.
As for F-4J UK, I haven’t read its manual or other available documentation.
AIM-9B is a different beast compared to AIM-9E - H, and AIM-9L is itself different.
AIM-9B can be used on all jets cause of internal coolant supply, AIM-9E may not be able to.
However, the USAF disposed of their F-5C fleet to VNAF before installing the an AN/ALE-40 CM pod on it, right?
Because the British government never bought AIM-7F of their own.
Why do we need to buy an inferior conical-scanning AIM-7F from US while we have Skyflash with an inverse-monopulse seeker?
As for the French F-100D, I have no source because I am not a big fan of Super Sabre.
But as long as Gaijin tries to pick some of the ahistorical loadouts for ‘easier balancing’ or ‘placeholder’
IMO, there is no means to not giving French F-100D AIM-9E and stuck on the same BR.
it has way worse loadout on both A2A and A2G sides, compared to the original USAF variant. :/
We also can see the strangeness in ‘messed up loadouts of F-104G on various nations.’
Gaijin is unreasonably strict in terms of equipment loadout for countries they dislike. I think.
Yes, the US Airforce thought countermeasures were dumb despite manufacturers offering them.
It’s why our first integral countermeasures are on F-16 and F-15C. Navy had better smarts: F-4J and F-14A.
Granted, other countries weren’t much better.
What about F-111?
I don’t know the story behind F-111A’s countermeasures, so I didn’t mention it.