I don’t have to be Gaijin staff to tell you how the world works.
Yeah i said that wrong.
What i mean is they couldn’t add it with r73 and r77 because they werent in game at the time, i think if it came at the same time as fox 3 it would be able to carry them.
This game is not the world of your imagination. If you are posting here on base what you see in your world. Stop bordering people that want to have fun in a simulator base game. Dictators are not welcome in entertainment fields.
Payload tested on Yak-141 is R-77 and R-73 as picture show. If this aircraft is in game then we are on track with the right demand.
How is me telling you it’s Gaijin’s game they make the calls being a dictator? You made a suggestion that is good. But to say it’s a right that you receive said armament makes you sound like a spoiled brat.
The missile mockup mounted on the wings I presume you mean? No real missiles were ever mounted.
Source: Russia Today
7 Likes
The aircraft is real as it did exist IRL and could fly, but the aircraft represented in the game is completely paper since it was never able to carry any weapons of any sort, and that the radar and IRST don’t even physically fit together in the nosecone. But sure, please do create a strawman of me.
Based on the idea fact Yak-141 was a prototype. Who the heck in this world can make a statement about the armament should be only cannon or real use in combat armament. Armament on this prototype should be in base was tested. That make sense. The mock up is a tested step to test the behavior for a particular payload. In this case the most normal is request what was tested on the prototype. What do you want? See the missile rocket on ignition to be included as m game. R-77 and R-73 are real combat use in other Aircraft. Doesn’t make sense stop it in use for a prototype
Everyone who cares for the integrity of the game to only add vehicles in a realistic state. A realistic Yak-141 shoud have a gun and EITHER a radar or an IRST, nothing else, hence it should be removed outright and be replaced with an aircraft which could actually fight.
It was never tested with any weapons, so it shouldn’t get any. How is this so hard to understand?
But not on the Yak-141. Should Spitfires be given AiM-9X because you could theorietically hang one on one of it’s pylons with a bit of work?
Again, you don’t understand what game War Thunder is. We want rrealistic vehicles, not space magic “what if” paper vehicles like the Yak-141. Go play World Of Warplanes if you want those.
It wasn’t the base development. Yak 141 and F-35 have almost zero connection.
1 Like
That’s a personal fake definition of paper your post is using.
IRST is a gimmick.
You were not strawmanned, your post said two opposite things.
It’s up to you if you want your post to represent your views like that after the flaw is pointed out or not.
@MatrixRupture
Lockheed Martin’s purchase of Yak-141 documentation and using that information to develop the center of mass and lift of F-35 for the F-35B says otherwise.
Lockheed martin helped develop the Yak 141 lmao.
So please tell me what a paper vehicle is then if it’s not “a vehicle which only existed on paper and was never brought into the real world”, because that’s exactly what the Yak-141 we have in game is with the avionics and missiles it can carry as the Yak-141 which existed in the real world got canned long before it ever recieved any of these systems. Gaijin has said themselves that the Yak-141 that we have in the game is only a representation of what they believe it would have become had it not been canned, not what it was IRL.
“It’s a gimmick therefore it’s irrelevant that it’s intentionally unrealistic”
You percieved it as saying two opposite things. I will concede that English is not my first language so I could probably have worded it better to point out when I was talking about the in-game Yak-141 and the Yak-141 which existed IRL. Even then if you just read what I wrote and thought for yourself which it was most probable that I was talking about in the context of what I was quoting then you could quite easily reason yourself into which I was talking about. You chose not to, that’s not my fault.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ft4idazsn9ys31.jpg
A simple Google search.
Ho-229, Kikka, Swift F7, Yak-141, etc aren’t paper vehicles no matter how much you claim all of them are.
Oh, and the reason I cut your post off at “we have in game is” is because your post attempts to change the definition your post provided earlier here:
If you cite the real definition, you have to use it. Ignoring it after posting it is just bad optics.
Are you unable to mentally grasp the simple fact that the variant we have in game with fully functional avionics and missiles didn’t exist and that it is thus completely made up as by Gaijins own words?
The ones we have in game are, because the variants we have in game didn’t exist IRL. Gaijin made them up, hence paper vehicles as these variants never existed beyond paper IRL. There are vehicles IRL that they are based on, but they are nothing more than Gaijin intentionally making stuff up.
You’re the one failing to realize that there perhaps is a slight difference between “this entire vehicle is fake” and “this variant of the vehicle is fake”. The Yak-141 existed and flew, but not the variant we have in game. It is completely made up by Gaijin and never existed past the drawing board since the project got canned before the variant we have in game was realized. That they based their imaginary perception of what this aircraft one day might have become on an unfinished prototype doesn’t make their imaginary variant real.
You are correct there is almost no connection with the 141. Lockheed payed for performance data from Yak other than that the X-35 already was built before their involvement with yak.
From the Deputy chief engineer of the F-35 ASTOVL.
1 Like
@RycotSS
Making up an arbitrary standard and arguing against that is called… “strawman fallacy”.
Your post is doing a strawman fallacy against Ho-229, Arado 234 C-3, XP-50, Swift F7, Kikka, J7W1, VB 10-02, SO8000 Narval, and Yak-141 for some dumb reason.
All of those aircraft contain Gaijin making shit up so they can add more vehicles. Not a single one of them is realistic to their true counterparts. They did exist in some form, but not a single one existed as we have them in game. Do you yet again fail to see that an aircraft which has been artificially changed can’t be called “realistic” because it’s based on some prototype? Do you know what a vehicle which never existed outside of the drawing board in real life is called? Can you spell it out for us? Thank you for listing a bunch of more vehicles that should be removed though!
@RycotSS
Again, you’re not talking about realism.
Realism is almost entirely about physics.
What you’re speaking about is service-authenticity, which War Thunder has never claimed to do.
We are not LARPing as real-life militaries.
And you pushing your anti-realism views onto us isn’t appreciated.
Milsim is a trash idea.
How has Gaijin made stuff up about them?
Can you prove that Gaijin didn’t just use existing plans to model an prototype in a finished stage?
That’s your definition of realism, not “the” definition of realism, as the definition of what’s realistic is entirerly subjective. Some only care that you can fly and it looks sorta like the planes could be real, some want complete milsim, and I’m in the middle whilst you are over there in the “it can fly” corner. It all depends on where you draw your line in the sand. I don’t want a full-spec milsim as I would just play DCS if I wanted that. I just want the vehicles to be 1:1 with how they were in real life with their characteristics. You only care about flightmodels being realistic (which they aren’t) and the general physics of the game being realistic (which they aren’t) whilst I care about both that and the accurate vehicle representation part of realism. You staying in your own corner is fine, but to lash out at people for not agreeing that your little corner is all of what being “realistic” means is just dumb.
If a vehicle is never intended to be accurate to their real life counterparts, then why does the bug reporting section exist for people to send in documents with errors on the vehicles? What stops Gaijin from giving a Mustang some sidewinders because surely if the Mustang just stayed alive a while longer it would have gotten them somewhere down the line, just like how the Yak-141 would recieve it’s missiles somewhere down the line.
Since they only add incomplete projects where “realistic alternatives” exist, are saying that there are no realistic alternatives to the Yak-141? It’s not like russia desperately needs an aircraft at that BR since they have MiG-29s.The only tech tree which could be in need of these exceptions is Japan as they quite frankly never had that big of a variety in their airfroce throughout their entire history. Every other nation has enough realistic alternatives, yet they still went ahead wih these unfinished prototypes.
By your own definitions realism is almost entirerly about physics. Are you saying I don’t believe in physics since I’m “anti-realistic”?
And I don’t want War Thunder to be a milsim, besides Arma is quite succesfull so you can’t say that milsims in general have no appeal. Does wanting a vehicle to be correctly represented in what weapons it had IRL and that vehicles which IRL never had the weaponry to be competetive in this game shouldn’t get added suddenly turn the entire game into a milsim? Really?
These vehicles are all part of the “we believe it would have became this if the project keep going” category.
That’s what they did, and that’s the reason I want them gone. I only want vehicles in game which fully match 1:1 with the real life counterparts rather than this entire “we think it would have been this” stuff, and if a vehicle never recieved the weaponry to stay competetive at any BR since it was never armed then tough luck. Those planes will surely have a bright future in World Of Warplanes though.
1 Like