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.
@RycotSS
No, the definition of realism I use is the Webster English definition applied to fictional works, of which all video games fall into.
DCS and WT are equally realistic. DCS prioritized service-authenticity, WT prioritizes manufacturers.
Tho DCS is leaning toward manufacturers thanks to pressure from WT’s competition.
Vehicles are accurate based on what manufacturers say, not what militaries say.
Okay.
If Gaijin is following the manufacturer’s brochures only.
Then
- Why F-4J(UK) can’t have AIM-7F which she was using back in her USN days
- Why JAS39C(SAAF) can’t have AIM-120 while other missiles are also from the Saab brochure (which was never used in South Africa at all)
- Why British vehicles with 6pdr and 75mm QF Mk. V can’t access ‘American-made APCBC with filler’
- Why MiG-21 bison can’t have R-77.
- Why Kurnass uses AIM-9D/G while F-4E uses AIM-9E/J
- Why half of the British air fleet can’t access AIM-9L which was a major IR missile in their arsenal.
- Why French jets can’t access AIM-9E while American counterparts can.
- Why we only can have an external fuel tank on Gloster Meteor as ‘Belgium exclusive’
- Extra fuel tanks for Hawker Hunters are only for Netherland/swiss hunter
Well, Your claim might be right at some point.
Their standards are not only tightly limited to the military arsenal for their loadout.
They also consider the manufacturer’s claim when deciding vehicle loadout.
But in fact. The sad point is,
Gaijin wants to manipulate their standards to whatever they want.
which quite feels like a double standard or bullshitting.
There are also some vehicles which are LARPing real-life military loadout
only for intended nerfs.
1- Show me where it says it can’t use E-2s. A historical loadout is historical no matter how disagreeable you personally feel.
2- Show me where it says it can’t use R-Darter, which is a meta AMRAHM and equivalent.
3- Gotta verify breech pressures if there’s no documented evidence that the manufacturer of Cromwell, etc test-firing the rounds.
4- Cause it’s 12.3 and prove that it can’t use R-73 and R-27R…
5- Cause Kurnass was confirmed to be compatible with those superior missiles by the manufacturer.
6- Prove they can’t use AIM-9Gs, and they’d be 12.7 [now that 12.3s are being moved up to 12.7 slowly].
7- AIM-9E uses a different cooling system to the AIM-9B more than likely, and the era of F-100 was more complicated with compatibility.
8- Cause the legacy secondary loadouts need to be updated.
9- Refer to 8.
All of the examples are within the claims of manufacturers, no cherry-picking.
R-77s on Mig-21 Bison would be a nerf.
-
as long as it is F-4J. According to Gaijin’s illogical standard which granted CM pod to F-5C(USAF), it also should get AIM-7F. why F-4J(UK) don’t have AIM-7F is purely British issue. because we didn’t bought any of it.
-
SAAF didn’t pay for installing R-Darter on JAS39C and retired R-Darter in 2008, installation of R-Darter on JAS39C(SAAF) is on the same level as AIM-9L/M or AIM-120A. if we only consider military standards, those missiles are nothing but a ‘plausible placeholder’ until IRIS-T comes out. And if we consider Saab brochures. There is no need to not give AIM-120A/B on JAS39C(SAAF) unlike the counterpart gripen on other nations.
-
Typical Devil’s Proofing. 57mm M1 and QF 6pdr is same gun. if we support your claims, there is no reason to keep Brit out of APC M86 which has explosive filler.
-
it ‘also’ can use R-77. But Gaijin cherry-picked missiles for a better sell point. At least we should’ve had MiG-21 Bison (Late)-ish on the regular tech tree.
-
Then, as long as the manufacturer supports it, F-4E(USAF) should’ve had an option with AIM-9D/G. right?
-
it can use BOTH AIM-9G and AIM-9L. Also, I am not calling Phantoms only, I am referring whole British air fleet including Harrier and Jaguar.
-
First, French didn’t bought AIM-9E. Well, you might be right this time. we have no evidence.
but with a bit of ‘whataboutism’, If it was all the contrary, if French were armed with advanced AIM-9E while USAF used inferior AIM-9B only, then F-100D(USAF) might had access to AIM-9E too.
That was how F-5C(USAF) robbed its ahistorical CM pod from F-5A(ROCAF) report. creating more sales points, of course. -
& 9. Yes. it is. But Gaijin is lazy enough to keep things out of control for 8 months long since the Seek-and-destroy update.
Extra 1. I can’t remember when it was, Gaijin changed the loadout of Chinese Tu-4 and H-5(Domestic licenced version of IL-28) with Chinese domestic bombs (Which have lower TNT and can considered as nerfing on ARB bombing).
If your claim was genuinely correct, Gaijin should’ve kept their soviet bombs too.
Extra 2. Israel’s B-17G is one big unhistorical bullshit which just copy-pasted plane modelling from the original USAF one (Israel bought an unarmed version from the Czech. so it should’ve had fewer gunners and turrets) but didn’t copy the bomb loadout from B-17G-60-VE and using israel bombs.
Maybe
No. they are obviously cherry-picking weapons from brochures. or the militaries.
“Missiles are a balancing factor” Blah ba blah. Gaijin’s Double-standard things all over the game.
I understand you like the current Yak-141, but don’t bring ‘historical’ to defend it.
1 Like
Why is this a requisite? The basic F-4J(UK) is literally a donated F-4J, which is why it’s not the F-4K or -4M which are partially comprised of select airframes remanufactured to new standards at a later date.
The Sherman II (UK tech tree) in game, literally uses M61 APHE, it’s the same round, just that the Brits did some testing later replaced the Filler with concrete, so it could be reused elsewhere.
The USAF variants of Sidewinders all use either Peltier Coolers or carry coolant internally, so no external cooling outside power is required.
Also the Navy’s LAU-7/B rails, use an external coolant and retain backwards hardware compatibility with the Early Sidewinder data transfer plug, so are compatible at a baseline though would likely loose additional features (e.g. SEAM), though depends on the host airframe.
2 Likes
Not an issue, the German F-4F gets access to the AIM-9J simply because it’s in the manual.
1 Like
Well, Gaijin hates Brit, so it seems Manual isn’t enough for this time.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
It’s like you said Gaijin bounces back and forth for the sake of balance. Hell they even sometimes don’t give aircraft historical loads for the sake of balance example on the top of my head is the F-14. But either way just like the yak-141 it’s gaijin still picking and choosing what they want in their game. Is it annoying? Extremely, you can’t figure out what their stance on anything is because a good amount of times it all seems tongue in cheek.
1 Like
Sometimes, buffing some American/Soviet jets with ahistorical loadout which was granted on ‘export version’.
Sometimes, nerfing some British/French jets by removing historical weaponry…
It all feels like quite bullshit.
If mighty Americans can get their petty ahistorical flare pod on their silly F-5C,
Because the manufacturer said they could.
Then there is no reason to not give AIM-120 on JAS39(SAAF) or 750lb on F-111C.
We also can discuss napalms on British Phantoms as an example too.
What about J-11A?
Just tired of the illogical unpredictable bouncing of Gaijin’s standards.
Unfortunately the same is true for the F-4F. It should have 4 Aim-9Ls, but is stuck with 4 9Js, one of the worst stock grinds ever, at a BR where Germany doesn’t need a plane.
2 Likes
Show me one, a singular example, of a military agency without aid of manufacturer, programming an aircraft we have in-game to use a missile that’s also in-game.
That is the claim of your post, and I hope you intended that claim and it wasn’t a mistake.
Every single weapon on aircraft was either programmed by the weapon manufacturer to be compatible with the aircraft’s systems [Python 3s], OR programmed by the aircraft manufacturer to be compatible with the weapon systems [JF-17’s IR missile compatibility; Yak-141’s R-27, and R-60 support; etc.].
Stop moving the goalpost and digging quote for f***'s sake.
That is not a point.
You even know my claim wasn’t meant that. Right?
And I hope you were mistaken and did not intend to pick apart.
For Example,
F-4J(UK) is AIM-7F CAPABLE. because it is just F-4J from USN.
We bought them because we were running low on phantoms after the Falkland incident.
Gaijin didn’t give us AIM-7F and napalm just because We didn’t buy those weapons.
Just what I told you before(a few days ago maybe?)
Why we would waste extra dollars for an inferior conical-scanning AIM-7F when we have Skyflash with a superior inverse-monopulse seeker?
According to your claim
There is no reason that F-4J(UK) isn’t armed with AIM-7F or napalm bombs.
But Gaijin refused to give it because AIM-7F on F-4J(UK) is unhistorical.
While F-5C on USAF service never installed CM pod before retirement from USAF, but Gaijin granted then because CM-less premium jets will be not popular.
Ahahahahah. What a joke.
including Yak-141, there are quite much of vehicles which are having ‘intended’ ahistorical loadouts.
(better than historically they did)
On the other side, there are quite much of vehicles which are even not allowed to have their full historical loadout and got limited.
I am telling that their illogical double-standard is nothing but full of bullshit.
@Stockholm_Blend
Me since 2019: “War Thunder uses manufacturer proof. Military agencies’ actions and claims are not used for War Thunder.”
Your post portrays you as not knowing what the words moving or goalpost mean.
The manufacturer of F-5A says all F-5As are capable of countermeasures. And yes, F-5C is an F-5A electronically, as proven by the manufacturer.
Your post also portrays you as not knowing what the words double or standard mean.
I highly suggest you breath down, as it’s probable those 4 misused words could be linked to emotion.
Also, “full historical” is a subjective personal term.
That’s not what is specified. A countermeasure dispensing suite was eventually designed and produced for the F-5.
The F-5C & F-5A configured F-5’s in US (USAF) service (As an F-5, is arguable if the T-38 counts, but is besides the point) were not equipt with said dispensers, only select airframes acquired by the USN as F-5N’s were.
The USAF never operated the F-5E in a combat role.
As such since the configuration and operator as specified, no the F-5A nor F-5C should have the AN/ALE-40 mounted. Could it have been mounted maybe, was it no.
Consider that they have refused the report to add the GPU-5/A to the F-15A / -C simply because the promotional Brochure only quotes the “F-15”, instead of “F-15A / -B / -C / -D / -E”, even in the face of supporting evidence that it can be carried on unmodified MAU-12 racks.
“It can be installed on any MAU-12 or “Aero 27” Bomb rack”, "Aircraft like F-4, A-7 and F-15 "
It should be fairly obvious that the Video / Brochure being referenced is attempting to solicit sales of the Gunpod to Clients with existing inventories of relevant aircraft.
6 Likes
Nice try of ad hominem.
What will be next?
“Your post =/= you”
or
‘other captures from webster dictionary’
Yeah, I should take a deep breath, I wasted my time again.
Thanks to you.
I should’ve had a nice cold pint, and waited for all of this to blow over. rather than arguing with you again.
NGL I don’t understand why F4 j (UNK) can’t receive the aim 7f if the f15i can get mavericks and the japanese f15jm can get aim 120 a.
This whole argument is pointless.
Just make a second one, slap the R-77s and R-73s on it, call it the Yak-141 (Late), stick it in a folder and be done.
Bam, everyone happy
3 Likes
If nobody claimed ‘current Yak-141 is historical’ for defending ‘his’ Yak-141 on 12.7…
The whole conversation would be shorter