War Thunder "Hornet's Sting" - Changelog

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
665

"## Location and mission updates

  • The following locations have received visual rework (new materials have been added, used assets have been replaced with new ones, visual bugs have been fixed):
    • Sinai
    • Jungle
    • Advance to the Rhine
      "

Based on experience, they once again sacrificed the concept, terrain, and playability of the updated levels just to make them fancy. This is again a big management issue. They ordered a fancy redesigned maps instead of order make a new one. Somethimes when i play on redesigned maps i feel the first version of Vietnam and Italy map was the masterpiece in concept case…

What a pity to mappers not have mapper knowledge just design knowledge.

In Sand of Sinai case the basic problem (not have covers between city and spawn point) not resolved but the rail road in city added, now have a point where we can spawn to spawn camp.

In Sinai case Removed every old covers , redesigned the terrain as a rush B style meat grinder piece of S.H.I.T. .

In Jungle case thanks to zero mapper knowledge the redesigned map is too shit. Thats a layer map with 3 layer:
Left/Mid/Right side.
Like SHitaly or his fancy version Campania. Basically get the middle point hill and spawn camping. The rivers got rock barriers so attack ways limited. In bottom side both spawn connected each other…etc.

In Advance to the Rhine Case the streets got more bigger size while not added enought cover ruins. The old ruins removed or somes size modified so it become more huge and work it as a choke points. 1-2 wreck able to block a whole point of street. They modified a concept a bit but thats in negative effect. Spawns are less protected in bottom side and in top right side. In old concept when enemy encircled the spawn in top right side the owner team able to resist and fight of them while use cover buildings around the spawn. Also SPAAs in safe from spawn campers whose stand in half of the map. Now they Cover building layer removed or the added one streen between spawn and cover building layer so this use the spawn campers for they advantage only…etc

666

SU33 and SU34 need to go to 14.0. The bias R77s and R7-1s plus they carry like 12 of them lol Russia has thier best Missile at the lowest BR. Remember AIM7Ps arent Fore and forget Air to Air missiles either.

1 Like
667

What?

The Su-33 is just a heavier Su-27 with 2 more BVR capable pylons, it is not fit for 14.0 in any means,

its deserving of its BR, at 13.3, its flight performance is quite weak, yes it has 8 FOX-3s, but it is the standard R-77 which is poor, especially on the Su-34, which is the worst Flanker airframe

R-77s are probably the worst FOX-3 in game, it only beats the Mica in range, and the seeker is poor, the R-77-1 is only bringing it up to AIM-120 standards

at the cost of:
countermeasure count, (Su-33 only has 48, Su-34 has 98, against the F-15s 240 and Euro 384 at 14.0, only the Rafale has anything remotely comparable and its still much more than both (164) )
MAW, (Euro, Rafale)
TWR, (Significant Margin)
MER,
BVR ability (Airframe related not missile)
FOX-3 Seeker quality
top speed
acceleration

only really the R-27ER could be argued for that, even then its not below 12.7, whereas the AIM-7F (same Flight performance as AIM-7M/P and a very similar seeker bar the DL on the P) is first seen at 12.0

R-73 too, but the R-73 really isn’t that special, with it being seen at 11.0 minimum on a Su-25, and not on anything competitive until 13.0

meanwhile
Magic II is first seen at 11.3 on the Jaguar IS (Semi-competitive airfame) and 12.0 on a competitive airframe,

AIM-9M is first seen at 11.7 on an A-10 (Su-25 Adjacent, 2x more missiles + HMD compared to Su-25) and also at 13.0 on a competitive airframe

neither is the R-27ER, only the Su-34s, R-77 is, like stated before, is likely the worst 90’s era FOX-3 in game

1 Like
668

I believe only the MICA has a different seeker with smaller notch angle while the others are identical.

Anyway, in air RB, I agree, the SU30SM is nothing special.
Aside from the R27ER insane performances (that are thankfully balanced with fox 3s), I do agree that most Russian air is okay, but not OP.
However, I do still have the issue of the r73 at 11.0 still facing planes that don’t even have countermeasures (many 10.0 aircrafts), which is a bit stupid (not for the IRCCM, but by the fact that they just can’t be dodged below 3km in any way, even more in front aspect). I have the same issue with all all aspect missiles that can go below 10.3 (where I believe every planes has countermeasures above 10.3), so it’s not just the r73, but the aim 9l is still somewhat dodgeable for some airframes in certain situations

669

RU is biased because they have pretty poor ARHs, hence they need to go up in BR.

One of the best takes in 2025 so far.

3 Likes
670

Su30 can get r77-1 but hornet cant get aim120c
If thats not bias then what is

1 Like
671

Well which Aim-120C are you referring to? Theres quite a few variants with dramatic performance increases between variants. Keep in mind the R-77-1 is on par with the Aim-120A/B ingame right now, despite the fact those are underperforming. It’s quite a proper and balanced choice really.

673

su33 doesn’t have fox3s

1 Like
674

Not rly r77-1 has the long range prformance of 120 with being the second best fox 3 for short range
The only fox 3 to have both good short and long range performance
And for 120c lets say the first variant for now

675

Yet the flight model the missile is on is still pretty mid for BVR. The Aim-120A/B on NATO aircraft still outrange the R-77-1 quite easily and even have better platforms, but yes it’s slightly worse at close range and they have less missiles. It’s more of a tradeoff than an imbalance as I see. If the Su-30SM had something like the Su-27SM engines, I might see it a bit more as a threat,.

That would be the Aim-120C-2, with only an improved seekerhead. The Aim-120C-3 is the same but with clipped find and less drag, the Aim-120C-4 is same as C-3 but has a better warhead, and the Aim-120C-5 is same as C-4 but has a much better motor and much further range. Goes on beyond that too.

1 Like
676

AIM-120C (mostly C-5 or C-7):

Increased launch range (realistically up to ~30–35 km).
Improved resistance to jamming.
Faster transition to active radar homing.
More reliable behavior when maneuvering against targets.

AIM-120D (if added later):**
Significantly better range and active radar homing.
Almost instantaneous response to target position updates via two-way data link.
Extremely high resistance to EPR decoys (flares) and jamming.
image

1 Like
677

Su30 is much better then f18c

U confused me here ngl i didnt knew there is so many versions
I think the c5 which is in the files will do the work
And ofc on the f18
We dont want f15e or typhoon with c5

678

Agreed, wish the F/A-18C was at 13.7 really (or the F-18C at least), or we get some decompression.

Yeah lol, I’m always confused myself when someday says just add the Aim-120C. I guess you could say in a similar fashion to mentions of the Aim-9M (which gaijin has yet to differentiate and label correctly), as some of these go up to really late variants with the 9X seekerhead and 35Gs of pull.

3 Likes
679

Some simply won’t stop until every aircraft carries AIM-260, AIM-95 and AIM-9X block III.

I really hope we reach some kind of asymmetric balance soon and that the balance sticks.

I don’t want a game where F-22A and F-35A of 2024 specifications are flawless planes with no weakness that isn’t over compensated by overwhelming advantage, but I feel great consternation that this is the future of Air RB/sim/jetstrike/duels.

Current indications are that ‘redfor’ nations will not receive planes with superior flight performance, rwr or radar anytime soon. They should at least have better missiles or something as an edge to create interesting asymmetrical dynamics.

Right now we have missile parity, but huge radar, flight performance, rwr and maws disadvantages for redfor vs blufor.

Rafale is still basically flawless and lacks basically any counter or check.

680

block 3 was cancelled

very old cancelled missile probably didn’t even have irccm

681

Why are the Su-7’s still at 9.3? They fight Mig-21’s and other vehicles with superior speed, agility, and weaponry

The bomb CCIP was removed, the bomb load is insufficient to destroy 1 base in ARB, and only has 160 ammo.

682

Because 9.3 is the lowest a supersonic aircraft can go. It just can’t have it’s BR changed until Gaijin decompresses 9.3.

683

Gaijin can you please lower the Tu-4 to 7.7 it already there in Realistic ground battles and Simulator mode but not in Air battles

684

Gaijin with what logic does the Tu-4 actually makes sense being in 8.0🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

1 Like
685

Is it just me or anyone else noticed that the Gripen engine sound is identical to the Hornet. A bit odd, given that the Gripen does neither have the same engine type, nor it has two of them.