Trenboloney sandwich for the Skyhawk

LMAO

rockets in the mig19 have an even smaller explosive than from the R60 wich has 3kgs of explosives, the rockets have less than 2kg. If its the ORO 57K pods that use the S5M rockets. Im not being super specific but the rockets that go in the ORO 57K generally dont have more than 2kg of explosives but the specifics of the S5M arent known as far as i could find.

@@flick_shot_5625 yes, but the R60 has a proximity fuze, while the S5M had to score a direct contact hit. It also looked like he hit with at least a pair of them, and even if we say the enemy could have survived, there wasn't even visual damage. Should have at least lost elevators.

yesterday, on the contention server, I hit an Apache with a magic two missile, he landed in the desert, I then did a gun run with the mirage guns and still did not get a kill, I think he was able to reslot after the gun strafe😢

eating a 37mm cannon round.. yeah i don't think so.. also eating a rocket. just kinetic force is enough to disrupt stuff and make you crash..

Yup, yet the Phantom tanks all - I’ve even had them tank R-27s to the face and continue to guide Sparrows onto the launch aircraft. Absolute meme

i forgot they made that, and the harrier damn this thing affects more things than i thought

@@cornexus1051 the mig 19, harrier and mirage 2000c aswell as the f15e

First time I’ve ever managed to land hits, so obviously they do nothing 😩

i was lucky to tank 5 manpads in 1 engagement (i think a few might have missed im not sure it was a thunderrun on an airfield)

@@flick_shot_5625 your a lucky one I guess 😂😂

@@Majima_Nowhere And the Fresco

@@kizvy It’s because the damage models are abysmal, it’s essentially built around more modern aircraft and using missiles for everything - also it’s designed primarily for single player; aircraft can tank damage so single player people can feel more accomplished landing after tanking hits, it just makes PvP a bit wank at times.

I think there's a middle point, planes in warthunder are made out of paper mache, while planes in dcs are flying tanks. Planes have been shown to take substantial hits and fly back to base so dcs gets it more right but maybe overdoes it slightly

You’re definitely applying some survivorship bias there, the planes that make it back beaten up are the exception not the rule. The conditions required to maintain flight are quite narrow, gunfire and explosives only have to damage structural, electrical or engine/fuel related components and the aircraft is more or less fucked. The question then becomes how fucked? Honestly WarThunder does a better job, all hits are visible however minor so there’s much more visual feedback allowing you to gauge the ability of the opponent to keep flying/fighting. DCS has white or black smoke, and bits falling off, as well as a few places that bullet holes appear etc, but none of the damage sustained is localised to the impact area of the actual projectiles that struck the aircraft. It makes it impossible to tell whether a contact is still combat effective or not. I’ve eaten multiple missiles in the Phantom and seen the launch aircraft fly away assuming I’m dead, because anything else would be, only for me to turn into them and shoot them down whilst they thought they were safe. That just doesn’t happen in WarThunder because the enemy aircraft’s flight worthiness is clear as day by inspecting the 3D model.

​@@Bullet4MyEnemy I wonder how much data the module makers have access to from MP servers. Speaking from experience, issues found by dedicated QA will never capture all the wild situations consumers put themselves in. These issues feel like a result of that, as well as a lack of data availability on the side of the module makers. There is also the claim from ED that most players only touch SP, which doesn't provide as much financial incentive to the module makers to provide quality MP support. I'm not sure what sort of analytics you can pull from DCS Servers, but I seriously doubt they can get the same quality of data the snail can pull from warthunder. If the infrastructure exists to pull that sort of data from the server, then perhaps HB can get some data from the public and put it to use in their modules. Now that they are the new faces on ECW, they should have some pressure to better support MP gameplay. This might be the crackpipe talking, but maybe we could get updated damage models for the tomcat and the viggen too

@@petlemons Fingers crossed

@@Rubberduckzillas Yeah, the Tomcat is definitely in the same tanking-four-R-60s league, it’s just rarer to see anyone shooting R60s at them to notice. They definitely focused more on the single player experience and the “1,500 part failures” than making the damn thing actually die. I think the single player focus actually promotes tanky damage models so people can have a higher success rate or feel more accomplished when they land after taking a hit. In PvP settings it’s just a bit of a meme, but it’s not just Heatblur modules, I could go off on this for a while - in fact I have a video in the pipeline talking about it.

You'd get on well with my partner coming out with puns like that, I feel like 75% of the sounds I make are groans at her terrible puns

Booooo!! 🤣

Are 9Ds even in the game? It’s just 9Bs and R3Ss

@@Bullet4MyEnemy nope, never seen a aim 9 D

If there's more modern Sidewinders for the 60s settings it would be the AIM-9E.

i think its more ED fucking up their implementation of everything, like with the radar when the Phantom was released. I dont feel like ED is smart enough for shenanigans like this. Also Enigma server has scripts that alter damage as well using blast radius etc.

@@flick_shot_5625 ED didn't make the Phantom.

@@19Koty96 That is correct. Heatblur did, but the phantom delay and the radar issues both stemmed from ED not doing their jobs. Heatblur makes the F4 but ED is heavily involved in it and they have to because its their own platform. They can screw things over just as much as Heatblur.

@@flick_shot_5625 right, I can see what you mean now.