F-5 Higher tech than F-16?

Empier4552 · Post by **Empier4552** » Apr 04 2003

How come the F-5 requires a higher tech level than the F-16 in SR2010? The F-5 is cheaper and has less of a range anyhow and is mostly for training these days...and the F-16 is available two levels lower at 79? (Vs level 81 for the F-5?)

Post by **Balthagor** » Apr 05 2003

Thanks for catching it. It was a mistake on the website. We have the F-5 @ level 64 and the F-5E @ 72 in the equipment file. I've updated the page locally, will be fixed next time we upload the site.

Mewshkin · Post by **Mewshkin** » May 02 2003

Has anyone mentioned the top speed of the MiG-31? The poor thing only seems capable of taxiing in SR.

Post by **Balthagor** » May 02 2003

You caught me again!! corrected to 2500km/h

... don't know how it was managing to get off the ground at only 70km/h!

Mewshkin · Post by **Mewshkin** » May 02 2003

That's OK, its only 2430km/h out!

Seriously, what is the relationship beween max performance and actual performance? I assume that one equals the other, yet this is not always so IRL.
Prime example- MiG-25, max speed clean M=3.2, operationally M=2.5 (apparently the engines could not be throttled ie controlled above Mach 2.

. Do Tornados intercept at M=2.2 (which they would never hit under operational conditions) or the more realistic subsonic patrol speeds (and does this matter 'in game'). I notice some of the recent 'theoretical equipment' posts have suggested that aircraft performance is superior to official statistics, whereas it has always been my understanding that the official stats were usually the best times or altitudes under optimal conditions in a clean configuation, in other words not combat conditions.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mewshkin on 2003-05-02 17:44 ]</font>

Mewshkin · Post by **Mewshkin** » May 02 2003

I'm sorry, I meant the MiG-25's engines couldn't be controlled above Mach 2.8, but the damn BB insists upon seeing this as a sunglasses wearing freak. Maybe just the board's unspoken controls on military nerds?
MM

Geta · Post by **Geta** » May 02 2003

On 2003-05-02 17:43, Mewshkin wrote:
I notice some of the recent 'theoretical equipment' posts have suggested that aircraft performance is superior to official statistics, whereas it has always been my understanding that the official stats were usually the best times or altitudes under optimal conditions in a clean configuation, in other words not combat conditions.

I think I made that suggestion. Yes, most published performance characteristics are based on non-combat conditions. That really does not affect the suggestion that published performance is often somewhat less than actual.

Post by **Balthagor** » May 05 2003

Aircraft values are all input at optimal values. We do make the planes aftificially "slower" at times and decrease their gas consumption somewhat to simulate what happens in real life but a Tornado going out to intercept would fly as fast as if it was empty. This was our attempt to simulate some of the issues with aircraft and fuel consumption rates. Some elements of RL needed to be set aside for gameplay.

Mewshkin · Post by **Mewshkin** » May 06 2003

Thats cool, I wouldn't want to be planning flight profiles for each individual unit!
Geta: My tone was a bit "I know what the hell I'm talking about", when I don't really! No needle intended.

Geta · Post by **Geta** » May 06 2003

On 2003-05-06 07:59, Mewshkin wrote:
Geta: My tone was a bit "I know what the hell I'm talking about", when I don't really! No needle intended.

No problem. I also can come across as miffed when I am only trying to be accurate. My dad was a "Sarge" for 20+ years, and some of his bluntness rubbed off on me.

LORD_BUNGLA · Post by **LORD_BUNGLA** » Sep 10 2003

actually, the faster and higher u fly, the more chance your missile will hits it's intended target.

Post by **Balthagor** » Sep 10 2003

We simply attach an attack value to the unit based on how it will usually act during engagments and the quality of the equipment. We don't really take flight level into account other than to seperate low, mid and high air.