tiopilotos Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 How can a Tu-22M3 not be affected by 110 rounds of DEFA 553 ??? While flying an intercept mission with a Mirage F.1C the AIM-9P sidewinders couldn't cause serious damage to Tu-22M3, so I got at a shorter range and started firing all the rounds. I don't know why but at least 110 rounds hit the bomber and at the end, there was no serious damage on the aircraft !!! Has this bomber a great resistance over missiles and guns or there are some specific changes I have to make in some of the Tu-22M3's inis ? Quote
macelena Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 Double tap with nukes, thats the only way to be sure Quote
+FLOGGER23 Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 What about the Matra 530? they surely will cause more damage... Quote
tiopilotos Posted April 27, 2011 Author Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) As fas as I can understand the medium / long range missiles can cause greater damage than the short range missiles but Tu-22M3 seems to have a great resistance over short range missiles and guns. Even the B-52 stock aircraft which uses very effective countermeasures against R-40, R-23/24, R-27 missiles can not stand many rounds on its fuselage plus the engines can easily catch fire. For some reason Tu-22M3 can stand many gun rounds but are very vulnerable on surface to air systems especially on MIM-23, which is proved to be super effective. Edited April 27, 2011 by tiopilotos Quote
+MigBuster Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) For guns try attacking from above or below - if they are cannon shells it should rip it apart - although if its well armoured in the rear that could be the issue. Look in its data.ini for any armour entries and reduce or remove them. You will need to experiment - although it has a proximity fuse a good hit with an AIM-9P would cause terrible damage (especially to an engine) - not to say it couldn't keep flying in rare cases. One thing to note is that a lot of the heat seeking missiles in this game often go for the rear fuselage and not the heat source - if say from example the engines are wing mounted which is a tad annoying. btw - bigger missiles do more damage because they have bigger warheads Edited April 27, 2011 by MigBuster Quote
Derk Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 (edited) Don't know how it is with the SF2 Tu 22 M3, but in SF1 it has a structural factor for the fuselage of no less than 80.5 (!) and armour thicknesses of 44 to 72, . The nose has steel (!) armour of 40 to 60. Wings have huge structural factors too of 24 and armour 10 to 24 If strenght is in mm, a cruiser would be happy with it....... Looking at other planes I haven't been able to find these values anywhere. If any, armour thicknesses of 4 to maybe 10 and structural factors of 1.5 to 2.5 look normal. Looks like the Tu 22M3 was built like a flying battleship and my guess is that those very high armour - and structural factors may be typo's and can be safely reduced, maybe soving the problem of indestructability..... Houdoe, Derk Edited April 27, 2011 by Derk Quote
+Wrench Posted April 27, 2011 Posted April 27, 2011 yes, armor values are in mm ... and that's DAMN heavy for any airplane!! I"d reduce it 5, max. wrench kevin stein 1 Quote
+FastCargo Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 As good as the Tu-22M3 looks...it was released with a less than optimal data.ini. The whole data.ini needs a detail scrub to get it right or at least in line with the other aircraft in the SF series. FC Quote
Derk Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Like the FM all right. No structural problems after reducing a lot of figures and It even gave me a flame out on one engine after a very rough touch & go !!! Except for a shot out engine in an F4, never experienced that in the game ....... Houdoe, Derk Quote
+Dels Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Like the FM all right. No structural problems after reducing a lot of figures and It even gave me a flame out on one engine after a very rough touch & go !!! Except for a shot out engine in an F4, never experienced that in the game ....... Houdoe, Derk Did you try to restart the engine? My guess is that it wouldn't. It's possible that when you "landed" the collision or min/max extent of the engine that failed would have been breached (tail strike perhaps). This makes the engine inoperative just as if it had been damaged by enemy fire. But it is good that this kind of detail was built into the sim. Dels Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.