I think that the people has spoken.
@Smin1080p_WT @Stona_WT
13 Likes
Nothing wrong would be, especially if it wouls be added to AMRAAM-less platform, like F-16D
7 Likes
A missile with 2 types of irccm and 70g, what could go wrong
The PL-8B is currently only a PL-8 with 0.75FOV, and improvements to its seeker and engine are still not acknowledged by gaijin. It would be inaccurate to draw parallels between the two.
3 Likes
Well, PL-8B got its seeker nerfed to R-73/MM2 state, probably author means the same treatment to P4
3 Likes
yea thats what i meant by saying “Gatewidth only” or “Tracking suspension only” but it seems that he skiped that part and directly goes for the last option without paying attention.
1 Like
It’s only gonna be 50Gs if gaijin doesn’t give it dual plane. And I have a feeling it will only come with one element of IRCCM similar to the AAM-3, and now PL-8B.
4 Likes
“Only”
no dude python4 can pull it has 70g of overload IRL, and remembering that the War Thunder flight models of both aircraft and missiles have a 1.5x g-force multiplier limiter.
That’s why there are magic IIs that pull 51 g or 9ms that pull 48 g.
the python4 in game can pull up to 105g
I’m just referring to what the stat card and files with say, not what the technical limitation in the game are going to be under specific circumstances and situations.
PL8B now is just a PL8 got a r73 seeker and with no engine upgrade.
If receiving Python4 mean a nerfed seeker, a nerfed engine and a nerfed overload. I would rather keep waiting. I am deeply regreting I had ever expected PL8B.
brother in christ i see magic-2s pulling up to 82Gs in the TAC VIEW, PL-5E-II pulling 88Gs in the TAC VIEW soo… and thats just for micro seconds of time every missile in game does this under your view every missile in game is a monstruosity.
1 Like
brother they do this with every missile they introduce to the game at this point you should know it, thats what the poll is about and i dissagree in something with you i would rather have the missiles than not have it you know why? because we were waiting for 16 months for it you dont think is long enough? and at the end of the day it would bring something new no matter what.
PS: we are still in devserver soo… people is expecting an update to the dev today lets wait and see what changes. i know that the PL-8B should have a way better engine, that it have a multi-element seeker like the TY-90 but let be realistic they are not gonna add IR missiles with IRCCMs past from what we have now disponible in game.
Nothing Nobody plays Israel
Yes, I do agree “Gatewidth only” or “Tracking suspension only” is a good idea to balance. Like they do on pl5e2 and aam3.
Forgive me being emotional. Last year, they said it’s too OP, rejected adding pl8b for J10a. That time I thought at least it may mean a engine upgrade. Now, pl8b comes out. Its performance makes me really comfusing where the OP point is on such pl8b. Especially when seeing “not a bug”. Pl8b is ruined. Sorry for being so negative.
50gs in game and u can add this like aam3 with only tracking suspention
1 Like
Isnt the motor just got buffed?
Still 2.44.0.23, nothing changes.
I play with Israel
1 Like
Why would you add a missile without their capabilities, artificially nerfed, because in the end it has to work like an AIM9M?
Why add python 4 a missile that has capabilities compared to modern missiles like pl10, aim9x, r74M, mica IR, iris-T… But completely nerfed so it has the same function as aam3/aim9m.
This request makes no sense…
Lol the missiles u said are on python 5 level
Did u even watched or test this missile on the dev server? It isnt that op
In a tight df r73 will still be better
Fp wise its about r27r that can pull 50gs(perfect conditions and bleeding energy like crazy)
Only reason not to add this its bcuz the irccm otherwise why not?
Remember it isnt a tv missile so it needs like 1.5sec to reach high g