Balancing The Vortex

[solid kettle]

The FS-20 Vortex explicitly draws design and role from the Joint Strike Fighter Program, a US led development program that resulted in the F-35 family of fighter jets. Like the F-35B, the Vortex utilizes Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) technology to operate from the BDF's fleet carrier, the Annex, as well as rearm at a variety of helipads, revetments, and airbases. It's 90 mil, has quite capable stealth, and is supposed to be "BDF's answer to the Ifrit" to paraphrase B25Mitch.

The problem is that the Vortex is based on designs that concede performance to facilitate STOVL capability. The Ifrit, however, is based on twin engine air dominance stealth fighters. Conceptually, the Vortex will always be at a disadvantage. This is supposed to be offset by the Vortex being 3/4 of the price of an Ifrit and a full rank lower, offering the BDF a more plentiful but inferior stealth fighter earlier in a match. Unfortunately, unlike the F-35B, the Vortex struggles to adequately compete with its peers. It isn't as economically viable for strike, lacks the internal Scythes to conduct stealth BVR, and it struggles in a dogfight... and it does so in a way that doesn't fit it's current price point.

The Vortex deserves to be competitive. To that end here are a list of buffs that would help it fill it's intended role without making it into an entirely new aircraft.

1. Significantly decrease the IR signature of the Vortex when at MIL power. If the Vortex gets a lower IR signature than the Ifrit when both are cruising at MIL it'll encourage players to use afterburner strategically, and give the Vortex a tangible advantage over the Ifrit.

2. Give the Vortex EOTS, essentially buffing it's camera detection and tracking range in a frontal arc, allowing better passive tracking of air and ground targets.

3. Figure out a way to cram 6 Scythes into the internal weapon bays. If the Vortex isn't supposed to be a F-35B, then don't limit it like one.

(cont'd in comments)

4. Model additional Vortex Lift. I can go into detail if requested, but properly modeling the vortices the chines of the Vortex should generate would significantly buff it's instantaneous turn rate and overall performance.

5. Increase the raw thrust so it can ascend in VTOL mode with specific fuel/payloads. Increasing the raw thrust would also help the Vortex recover from low energy states faster, with the caveat that (through tweaking the drag values) the aircraft should have the same top speeds at various altitudes that it does now, both at low and high power settings.

6. Create a new BDF AGM that's essentially the AGM-48 but for supersonic platforms, like the Brimstone missile (or JAGM). This would be perfect on the Vortex, and would be a unique advantage over the Ifrit for strike. For those worried about the Compass- the Vortex is more than 4 times as expensive, it should be at least somewhat economically viable for strike like the Compass is. Triple external mounts on both external pylons of AGM-48-like missiles would be a good buff to the Vortex's strike capability, especially combined with internal munitions.

7. Create a multi-mission-centerline-pod that additional weapons, radar/sensors, defensive jamming capacitor, or even offensive jamming could be equipped in, depending on what makes sense for balance.

8. Consider price reduction if needed, possibly to 75 mil (from 90 mil), however this should be a last resort if other buffs prove ineffective.

I can go into depth on each point as needed, not every one needs to be adopted, but some or all would go a long way to helping this fighter in both air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements. It would not, however, make the Vortex overperform compared to the Ifrit.

*Here's some visual examples of the vortices that modern fighters generate on purpose to increase their lift. This helps in both high speed and low speed maneuvers, and would help the Vortex whip around to get guns on target in a realistic and relevant way.

This system would ideally also be implemented on the Revoker and Ifrit, but the Vortex stands to gain the most from the addition of it.*

[rotund marten]

i would definitely like to see vortex lift. the BDF must befriend the spirals

[solid kettle]

Here's an example of what I mean by the new AGM- the JAGM is a great example of an AGM-48 size missile that could be mounted internally and externally on the Vortex. Triple pylons of JAGMs on both the wing pylons of the Vortex alone would be a major buff to the Vortex's standoff strike capability- however, considering how the JAGM or the Brimstone are designed for larger pylons, there's some variation in how this could be implemented.

Roughly the size of a AGM-114 Hellfire- which is almost 1:1 the size and shape of an AGM-48- the JAGM will be used by a variety of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, including the F-35B. It's very much a realistic and relevant weapon system for the Vortex, but potentially not the Ifrit.

On top of that, the US Navy is certifying the F-35C with not only the JAGM- but the AGM-114 Hellfire as well.

One thing the Vortex is lacking compared to the F-35B is a centerline multi mission pod. The pod exists because the F-35B lacks an internal gun- a flaw the Vortex notably does not have, however, the pod can be used for a variety of other capabilities which the Vortex could take advantage of. This includes additional sensors, extra capacitor charge for defensive jamming, offensive jamming, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW- essentially like the Medusa's laser), and even additional munition storage for weapons like the PAB-80LR and AGM-48.

[rotund marten]

that would be a really cool addition

[solid kettle]

*"Six In The Bay" is the nickname for the joint USAF and USN campaign to develop additional internal "sidekick" pylons for both the F-35A and F-35C, allowing both variants of the F-35 to carry 6 internal AIM-120D ARH missiles. The Vortex may draw homage from the F-35B and X-32, both of which lack the bay size of the F-35A/C, but if B25Mitch explicitly says the Vortex isn't a F-35B, then why hold it to the same restrictions?

The issue with the Vortex receiving 6 internal Scythes ingame is a matter of space, but could potentially be fixed by folding the fins of the Scythe. If it proves impossible to either fold the Scythe fins (or create a new variant for internal usage, like how the S2 IR missile was created for heater bays), then the addition of a mixed loadout of 4 Scythes and 2 S2 missiles would at least give the Vortex a more capable BVR-focused loadout, instead of the mixed loadouts it has now which emphasize heatseekers. The Vortex needs a better long range loadout to exploit it's supposed stealth advantage- 6 internal Scythes would allow it to do so.*

Here's that relevant Mitch quote, for the record. Mitch, if you're reading this, remember, turnabout is fair play...

[rancid flicker]

how do you propose we shove 3 scythes in a bay when its highly unlikely we'll get specific missile variants, like how the AIM-120C is made to fit 6 in a raptor, given mitch's focus for simplicity. the S2 is its own missile and not a variant of an S3, and is meant to fit in more than the heater bays

[opaque lance]

The increase of Thrust would also help a bit with sustained turnrate, a buff in something the Vortex needs

[solid kettle]

Either
-add folding fin mechanics to the Scythe
-add an new ARH missile that is to the Scythe what the S2 is to the S3
-slightly increase the weapon bay depth enough to fit. As you can see, the Vortex has incredibly shallow bays where the missiles sit side by side, while the F-35 has deeper bays where another AMRAAM pylon can be equipped. There's a possibility that increasing the depth of the physical bays will be juuuuust enough to cram another Scythe in there.

Or, if none of that is possible, then a mixed loadout of 4 x Scythes and 2 x S2s would be a more appropriate loadout for BVR than just 4 x Scythes or 2 x Scythes and a number of heatseekers.

[fickle tundra]

downsized Scythe? like a low profile Derby?

[opaque lance]

Also please please give it canted wingtip pylons that would reduce the rcs while having an S3 equipped to them

[fickle tundra]

the wingtip pylons already have zero RCS, giving them canted would just look cooler

[rancid flicker]

afaik currently RCS works by adding +0.XXXX per weapon pylon selected

[opaque lance]

This is a feature on the F-35 series of jets that lets them maintain an effective stealth profile while letting them have two self defense missiles.

[grave drift]

i am both enthralled and concerned at what this thread may bring

[solid kettle]

Could be the beginning of BDF/PALA specific air-to-air missiles.

Or, alternatively, introduce slots into the weapon bay so that the Scythes can sit flush with the bay itself, similar to how the KF-21 has semi-recessed pylons, but internally, in the weapon bay themselves. Could have two Scythes sit flush with the bay and one on a door pylon that unfolds a la F-35, if necessary for them to fit.

[rancid flicker]

im gonna come back tomorrow to "237+ messages since 3:06 AM" and id rather gouge my eyes out than read all that

[opaque lance]

Actually another benefit is it could allow the things used to control the jet while in vtol out a bit and give more space on the inside wing pylons for weapons. Iirc that was an issue limiting the Vortex capacity

[solid kettle]

I kept it shockingly brief, no more Part 1/2/3, you should be able to preserve your sanity somewhat

edit: nevermind he's gone insane

[fickle tundra]

or maybe, just clip them in and call it a day

[reef hollow]

Again, I think only demonstrates a just desire for a rank 4 BDF fighter. Maybe the Vortex is a bit too expensive, but if you close the gap between the FS-12 and the FS-20 too much then you lose the point of the dichotomy between air superiority and stealth at a lower rank

[opaque lance]

Yea but the thing is though the FS-12 is almost always better than the FS-20 due to just being generally really good. Only downside is not stealthy

[reef hollow]

that's a huge downside for any kind of strike mission

[opaque lance]

Let me put it this way:

the Vortex at MTOW has a TWR of 0.86

The (heavier) Revoker at MTOW has a TWR of 0.95

The Revoker can carry the same amount of air to air and only a bit less air to ground weapons.

[solid kettle]

I can't think of a situation where you'd sortie a Revoker without 12 AAMs onboard, and I'll often sortie with a full Scythe loadout or Scythe/Scimitar loadout for BVR in the Revoker. For 30 mil more, you sacrifice agility, acceleration, top speed, and also lose out on ARH payload (Vortex can only carry 10 Scythes total, it doesn't get the triple mounts for external pylons). If you run stealth, you have 1/3rd the ARH loadout.

It doesn't feel like the Vortex is worth the 30 mil extra for that reduction in BVR capability- whether you sortie it with internals only, or a full ARH loadout.

[reef hollow]

Different planes for different jobs

[fickle tundra]

Revoker is the same class as Viper and cant really use its carry capability to its full potential, the smaller plane can carry more things

[solid kettle]

Buffing the Vortex's internal payload wouldn't change the need for a BDF rank 4/5 fighter, but it would help the Vortex compete as a stealth fighter in BVR. It would justify the 90 mil price tag- for 3/4 of the cost of the Ifrit, you would have 3/4 of the BVR capability, losing out on the heater bays and the significant kinematic advantages the Ifrit has, but retaining the same potential internal Scythe loadout.

For the record the Vortex can already carry 8 internal AAMs. The issue is that most of those are heatseekers, and this is a jet that doesn't thrive in close range engagements.

[opaque lance]

Except the fact that the Vortex doesn't really have a role. It's supposed to be air to ground and it does have some air to ground but it is still not good at it.

[solid kettle]

If 6 internal Scythes is 100% not possible, then at the very least 4 Scythes and 2 S2s would give it a better loadout balanced for BVR instead of its current heatseeker-heavy loadouts

[reef hollow]

I think the +2 ARH internally is the least offensive suggestion (along with subtracting ~10M from the price), just concerned about its flight model, because I think a very awkward but very invisible and somewhat accessible stealth aircraft is a neat archetype

[graceful hearth]

if it gets EOTS does this mean it should get 2 lasers like the cricket and chicane?

[opaque lance]

That would be interesting

[solid kettle]

I included the thrust buff and vortice lift buff but I don't think it would change the fact that the Vortex... kinda sucks, as far as agility goes. It would help it with sustained defensive maneuvers, but once it closes to guns it would still only have one good turn before it's risking getting energy trapped. But with vortice modeling, that turn would hopefully be a lot more competitive.

The Revoker would still pull crazy PSMs to outfly it, and the Ifrit would most likely continue to out rate it. It's very much subject to the nuance of implementation, and would require testing, but they're quality of life tweaks I hope would make it less painful to fly. A bit like the F-4E getting leading edge slats- doesn't change the fact it's a Phantom, but it helps.

*Man, I completely forgot to talk about EOTS.

The Vortex currently has practically the same detection range of targets via radar and optical sensors as the Ifrit. It's lacking one of the defining features of the F-35 family of jets- the Electro Optical Targeting System, a super advanced optical sensor crafted to keep the overal RCS low while integrating the capabilities of top-of-the-line sensors internally on the F-35.

In Nuclear Option, a EOTS would allow the Vortex to detect targets at ranges longer than DAS (which is on all aircraft) but still slightly shorter than radar. It would have an increased range detecting hot targets- afterburning fighters, for example, would show up at longer ranges than non afterburning aircraft. And the Vortex would be able to do this without emitting at all- a powerful advantage in a stealth BVR engagement.

EOTS is more than advanced FLIR- its also able to lase targets at long range, potentially translating to the Vortex being able to lase multiple targets instead of one like the Ifrit, allowing it to more effectively utilize Kingpins.*

The X-32/F-32 design/concept notably lacked an EOTS, so it's hard to figure out where exactly it should go (if Mitch wants to physically model it) on an aircraft with a similar intake.

[opaque lance]

Doesn't the Vortex have one?

I'm pretty sure most of the aircraft have an optical camera placed somewhere on the model

[solid kettle]

If it has to be physically modeled, I could see it sitting on the underside of the nose, or on the underside of the intake. But as far as I'm aware, outside of the existing DAS optical sensors, there isn't an actual EOTS modeled for the Vortex- or any NO fighter. The Medusa does have a front facing optical sensor, but it's not shaped like EOTS, so I'm unsure if it's supposed to represent that capability or not.

[dense cypress]

i argue it could just be an unmentioned difference, doesnt have to affect external scythes but it doesnt need to be a different weapon name either

[opaque lance]

Damn the Vortex still looks so amazing

[graceful hearth]

I think mitch did really make a X-32 design work unlike boeing, though i like the intakes on the F-35 more

[signal kite]

I was scared read this post....
But this was pretty good rational ideas.

1. Give vortex little smaller IR signature (aircraft which almost stealth and invisible) have sense, and make use afterburner like tactical maneuver sounds good.

2. IDK for what he need same buff... But probably why not...

3. Yes, this will be pretty good!

[west wasp]

IMO 2 buffs are rather uncontroversial and would merely serve to make the Vortex easier and more fun to fly without really impacting its role or balance substantially.

1. Making the engine more powerful
Right now the engine is just incredibly weak; it can't hover without AB and the plane starts feeling sluggish with even small additions to the load.

A more powerful engine would allow the plane to hover without AB, making it much less painful to land and take off; something that's currently often more time consuming and painful than other aircraft to the point of being a weakness rather than strength of the airframe.

2. Reducing the IR signature and making it bleed heat faster
The Vortex is supposedly stealth and incorporates features that'd reduce the IR signature and allow it to bleed heat. But in spite of that, it ends up feeling like it runs hotter and stays hotter than the Revoker.

It should either lose the covers and just get 3D TVC, or actually have a low heat signature and an easier time bleeding heat.

[signal kite]

4. IDK... Vortex vertical mode use not perfect, but not bad right now. But slightly buff still not be bad.

5. I think(i can mistake) but same aircraft already have pretty good vector thrust. He can carry more than moderate heavy payload in vertical mode, this enough. He not must carry heaviest loadout and take off vertically.

6. I think somehow about this. Maybe this could be as feature for this aircraft. But pretty sure he shouldnt carry more 12 same weapon.

7. Not sure... I think talk about same little early... Of course this is cool feature, but same devices must have not only vortex... This much better place in weapon topic about same devices.

8. Maybe slightly price reduction will help him looks good if compare with ifrit. Like 85-80 mil. But 75 looks pretty small price. For current version. But for buffed version he should have price 90 mil or even 95

[west wasp]

It's worth mentioning just how weird and painful the VTOL is; it feels like the plane has been twisted around needing the AB to hover, and that makes everything that uses the already not very useful VTOL even worse.

The VTOL already has little to no combat utility, but with the forced need to use AB it just goes from bad to worse because landings become painfully long affairs that often end with the plane bouncing thanks to the AB.

[signal kite]

I think he have enough good optical sensors. But small buff +10-20 percents radius might be not bad

[signal kite]

Well... This sounds rational... Yeah. But i think in this case little reduce afterburner power, will be vortex have similar thrust and speed and acceleration

[west wasp]

The engine is also plain underpowered.

Put even a small amount of weight on it and the plane goes from feeling nimble to feeling sluggish.

IIRC it was mentioned that the Vortex engine is the least powerful amongst the fighters.

[west wasp]

150 for the Revoker, 137 for the Ifrit, and 130 for the Vortex.

[signal kite]

And thats a deal! Yeah, make similar as ifrit could be not bad. But i sure its already good

[dusk lake]

Is that 137 for both of ifrit's engines or with them combined?

[solid kettle]

Is it 137 or 140 now?

[west wasp]

@fickle tundra

[dense cypress]

pretty sure per engine

[dense cypress]

i agree, the need for afterburner was and still is my biggest turn off for the vortex. it just goes too quickly from too little to too much power and you end up porpoising

[woeful goblet]

If we comparing the Ifrit, an export (or rather, not just an export, but even a fighter produced in relatively young countries such as Primeva) multi-role fighter from 2070s with the F-22/23, high-altitude interceptor, that were so advanced that it was never intended for export, from 1990, made some sense, because at least in terms of their size being 1:1 and being almost similar externally. But comparing Vortex with the F-35 is just some new level of cosmic copium

[signal kite]

Yeah
Vortex have empty mass near 7-8 tonnes and smaller sizes, and of course little weaker engine. Against empty 14 tonns of F35. So we shouldn't compare he with f35. Maybe some functions or features, but not flying characteristics.
And vortex have smaller space for bays and more powerful engines

[agile valley]

Wanna throw out there I made a suggestion in the original suggestions forum outlining a smaller medium range air to air missile that had similar range but had a smaller warhead and was more susceptible to jamming. Adding something like this to the game would fix a lot of these problems.

These missiles are roughly half the length of other modern ARH missiles. They may or may not feature a dual pulse motor that ignites after it goes active to boost terminal manueverability

Something like this only carry-able internally would incentivize more stealthy loadouts

[signal kite]

Dont forget, he dont have enough space for installing more powerful engine.
And he have another fan engine for VTOL. So... He enough powerful if we dont forget about fan

[signal kite]

Still dont forget about this. In flying characteristics vortex still not F35, and i think Vortex can carry similar payload(in mass)(i can mistake) as F35, so... in this case Vortex still better than F35. And really have sense about function feature which can include vortex from F35, but not all

[signal kite]

Yeah. Go. I will be interesting concept smaller, but still radar missile. Radar missile which really could use vortex to increase amount of radar missiles to 6 in bays

[signal kite]

Cosmic. I think to implement same feature for aircraft we should create new topic about new radar system. Where pilot will can change radar type on aircrafts with radar, like ground units radar, all round radar(but will work not so good for all), and air radar, in this case will have space and sense for install similar system. What do you think?

[west wasp]

The engine size can honestly be whatever is needed

The point remains that the engine struggles both as VTOL (especially with the need to use AB, making landings really weird and slow), and in forward flight where it goes from nimble to sluggish with even small additions to the load carried.

So IMO a more powerful engine would only serve to help the Vortex in places where it already ought to feel strong, without making taking away from its character.

[opaque lance]

140 for Ifrit

Also engine power is just a value, not dependent on the engine size. There's a reason aircraft aren't made so small.

[solid kettle]

It’s not “copium” when the creator of the aircraft designs it explicitly on a mix of the X-32 and F-35… both aircraft which competed for the same contract and were required to meet the same JSF standards.

It’s not a F-35B- but when looking for ideas on how to realistically buff the aircraft, that’s probably the best source of inspiration, seeing how the Vortex shares the same role, same STOVL system, similar flight performance and somewhat similar payload, etc.

If you have a more relevant source of ideas for buffs that don’t turn the Vortex into something it’s fundamentally not, I’m all ears.

[opaque lance]

I think slightly increasing the size might fix both the bays issue and give a good reason for the engine to be a bit stronger

[solid kettle]

I’m wary of proposing a redesign that would break liveries, but the aircraft is new enough where it would be less catastrophic than something like the Revoker or Compass.

[opaque lance]

Well if it was upped by 1.3x it wouldn't break anything I'd imagine, since everything would be the same

[lime bramble]

that would make it twice as heavy

would also make it harder to field on carriers

[solid kettle]

Oh you mean increasing the overall size- yeaaaaaaaah that’s… I’m not sure how easy that is, I doubt it’s as easy as dragging the corner of an image to scale it up.

[lime bramble]

i dont think it would be too difficult, but it just doesnt make much sense

[solid kettle]

In his defense, the USS Tripoli holds the current record for most F-35Bs deployed on board (20, more than the 16 the QE has had). I don’t think the Vortex would take up the same amount of space as a F-35B even if it was slightly larger, but there are other issues with the “make it bigger” idea

The Tripoli doesn’t have a well deck, but the Annex also doesn’t have internal space partitioned off for medical facilities, berthing, amphib vehicle storage, etc AFAIK, so it’s a moot point

[lime bramble]

there is a lot of internal space on the annex that is just unused, the well deck only goes about halfway forward so there is tons of space for vehicles there

[forest beacon]

Can we like, wait till whole roster of airframes for each faction will be added and only then be concerned about rebalancing existing airframes ?
I have a feeling that this type of "balancing the" is either not needed right now, or quite bulk for including and wasting time on implementing
Is it really that bad (Vortex right now) so we need whole suggestion with all those buffs, just for one plane ?

[solid kettle]

You want to wait until 2026 or beyond for the Vortex to be augmented by a superior BDF fighter? We’re not getting any new fighters this year, and probably not most of next year either, based off what Mitch has said on stream and in chat.

Instead of waiting 1.5+ years for the “full roster” that we have no confirmation is coming, how about we buff the Vortex reasonably and moderately to help it be more competitive for its price point and role?

[forest beacon]

And when new fighter will come out, we will again buff X to be reasonable and moderate to compete with others ?
Just like the vortex right now
I wont mind waiting, if the devs gonna cook i dont want to disturb them

[opaque lance]

This forum is for suggestions and feedback. This is both.

[fair rampart]

Probably, that’s what game balance is?

[solid kettle]

No, because the new fighter will be made to compete with existing aircraft that are balanced to be competitive and viable in their role. If we don't fix fighters now, that actually risks even more balance issues- because new additions would be crafted to fit a meta that is fundamentally flawed.

Also, to answer your premise that the Vortex doesn't need these buffs- consider the following:

For maximum BVR, I can take a Revoker with 12 Scythes or an Ifrit with 14 Scythes (and 2 S2s), both of which having better kinematics (which extends missile range and helps when carrying a full load). The Vortex can only carry 10 Scythes, and it lacks the acceleration, speed, lift, and control that either the Revoker or Ifrit has with a full external load. RCS really doesn't matter in this situation- it's pretty clear that for full missile payloads, the Vortex is sub par for 90 mil.

For stealth BVR, the Vortex has 4 internal Scythes compared to either a 12 Scythe Revoker (which doesn't care about stealth) or a 6 Scythe + 2 S2 Ifrit. Unless you fly the Vortex like an ambush fighter and use heaters primarily- which is antithetical to the supposed stealth advantage the aircraft has- you're at a solid disadvantage in BVR.

For air to air- what exactly is worth the 30 mil price increase? The Vortex is incredibly limited kinematically, good players can make something of it but those same good players will trounce it in Revokers and Ifrits.

The idea behind these buffs- whether some or all get adopted- is to nudge the Vortex into a more competitive state, that's all.

[forest beacon]

Yeah, but im kinda beware that this will turn into cycle that will just go on and on with the release of any new airframe
We will get new fighter > we need to balance previous fighters to compete with new ones
I dont mind balancing stuff, but this sound like a beginning of something that will be always suggested to be done whenever new aircraft will come out
So, why not just wait till at least somewhat of sensable roaster of airframes will be done, and only then proposesuggestion that bear a lot of buffs for certain planes

[fair rampart]

But the balancing is flawed at the moment, are you suggesting we do away with game balancing for two years just so this forum is less cluttered with balancing posts?

[forest beacon]

how its flawed and how rebalance of one airframe will make balancing suddenly right as it intended ?
tho its getting a little bit offtopic

[opaque lance]

Balance is like that. As long as things are added, balance will need to be adjusted

[fair rampart]

Well, it’s flawed because the Vortex kind of sucks.

[solid kettle]

That's not how this works at all. When a new fighter comes out, it's going to be designed to compete with the existing fighters in the game. It's better to square away the balance of the existing aircraft before adding new ones, then let aircraft languish and screw up the balance of future additions.

You're suggesting letting the Vortex remain subpar so that players go fly another aircraft. And you're suggesting waiting till mid 2026- the Missile Update has become the Q2 update, so we're only getting 2 more aircraft in 2025 if the development cycle continues as planned, and the third will drop Q1 of 2026. That's what we have to get out of the way before we can possibly get a new fighter, an aircraft we've heard no indication of Mitch considering/prototyping/adding whatsoever.

Leaving a vehicle in a bad balance state for over a year is not a good idea

(And this is coming from someone who would love a true BDF air dominance fighter down the road, as you can clearly see as I'm the one who asked Mitch about it in said screenshot)

Nothing against Mitch, I love this game and his vehicles- but 2024 only released 3 vehicles instead of 4, and 2025 kinda looks like it might be on the same track, seeing as Mitch mentioned the Missile Update replaced the PALA helicopter as the Q2 update. Factoring in reasonable timelines, that's far too long to wait on an aircraft we have no confirmation is coming.

In addition we may not get a new fighter at all if Mitch truly wants the Vortex to remain the BDF counter to the Ifrit...

[fair rampart]

Tbf it’s hard not to see a PALA rank 3 somewhere along the line

[forest beacon]

I have not suggested any of these lel
main point was, that this type of suggestion is potentially will evolve in balance creep
Like, Ifrit for example, before buffs it was good, and i mean really good
now its even better, for some its a win win, but for some its not
same here, Im not saying that we should just wait and not suggest any of the changes for Vortex for few near years

Vortex is kinda crappy, because its competitor (Ifrit) was buffed (not gonna say who was proposing those changes) while Vortex stayed as it was

My main concern is that already powerful platform, was buffed
while its "cheap" side grade was not, so you are proposing buffing Vortex, because of buffed Ifrit
that will just probably lead in that balance loop hole
we will get new airframe, no matter how its good or bad, we will buff existing airframe and then buff new one

if you like buffing something for the sake of buffing, then alright
I didnt get an enough grip of Vortex to consider its bad or got, for me its still decent
but anyway, i dont want to offtop much

[solid kettle]

That's where we disagree, because the Ifrit wasn't balanced right and arguably wasn't worth the money. Fully loaded Revokers could outrun it clean and it took twice as long to accelerate at altitude than both the Revoker and Vortex. There was no reason to use it as a stealth fighter, it had horrible adverse roll when yawing, it struggled to fill the role it was physically designed to do, and it was nerfed in the first place because a certain Youtuber threw a hissy fit over the concept of multirole stealth fighters in general. The balance of the Ifrit pre-fix was horrendous and the fixes have been very positively received, as far as I can tell. This idea that it was "really good" is completely incorrect.

There's no "balance loop" that occurs here. The proposed Vortex buffs are incredibly minor. The idea is that some or all of them would make it worth the price. There's no further buffs that will magically kick in after this, the Vortex needed these anyways before the Ifrit buff. I'd be making this exact thread regardless if the Ifrit got fixed or not, same way as the Revoker has its own issues that need to be addressed regardless of its relationship with other fighters.

This game is in Early Access. Suggesting leaving an aircraft crappy- as you put it- for years is... well, absurd.

[forest beacon]

well if Ifrit that obviously was quite op in regular fights most of the time and was number 1 fighter that was used by many as all-rounder was "not worth the money" then I dont see the point to continue arguing about it
we have completely opositу impression of it or balance philosophy

[solid kettle]

It was used solely for missile or bomb spam, internal only sorties were limited in flexibility and offered no advantages over fully loaded competitor aircraft. For pete's sake a fully loaded Vortex could out accelerate a clean Ifrit. It sucked in a lot of ways, hence the whole balancing series. This idea that it was somehow "OP" comes from people using it to hit a lot of targets in PVE, and thank god the game isn't balanced around how brain dead PVE can be.

I'm not surprised we have different balancing opinions given that you yourself admit you're not familiar with flying the Vortex enough to know if it's bad or not.

There's very clearly a lot of work here making sure this isn't buffing for the sake of buffing, the suggestions are targeted, realistic, and relevant, but as you said- you don't really know much about the Vortex, so I shouldn't assume you know what you're talking about.

[abstract grove]

I agree with all the main points, but this one especially stands out to me. I don't use the vortex as a fighter so much as I use it as a strike attacker, and the fact that it is as bad at spotting land targets as the revoker is probably the biggest hinderance to its operation, more so than its handling or energy loss . Some extra gadgetry of any kind would go a long way in defining it apart from its 2 competitors, and the extra vision / laser designator would be by far the simplest impactful addition.

[naive knoll]

A stealth aircraft with good ground unit spotting and designation capabilities would also throw a bone to all the people who want a recon plane, without needing to design an entirely new aircraft for a relatively niche role.

[worn moss]

Improved optical sensors would synergize well with the disabled radar stealth regime the vortex favors.

[grave drift]

detection is actually a good point; i've specifically added better detection to all jets in the QOL mod while also buffing those with large optics sensors, like the cricket and chicane (nearly 20km range now)

[worn moss]

The vortex needs all the passive sensors it can get its hands on

[naive knoll]

Holy raycasts, batman

[worn moss]

Run them every four frames and stagger them with everything else also running raycasts every four frames

[grave drift]

staggered raycasts every 2 seconds

[worn moss]

I was on the right track

[vestal bloom]

excuse me what!? ahem may i perhaps have a link to this wonderful mod of yours?

[grave drift]

all of my mods are available in #1337634794040983593

well, the server

[solid kettle]

I’ve found some images of how a JAGM-sized-missile could be mounted on the Vortex. Looks like the exterior pylons are classic triple racks, while the interior can fit 4 pretty snugly. I’d have to look more at the dimensions of the Vortex’s weapon bays to see how many would fit, but it definitely seems like an interesting alternative to the PAB-125 for strike loadouts.

[fickle tundra]

JAGM is basically a slightly longer Hellfire (like Brimstone), wonder if it would justify making a new missile (with better warhead or guidance or range or something) or just using the AGM-48

[solid kettle]

IDK- I mean you can already fire external AGM-48s from a transonic Compass no issue, I wouldn’t think they’d have an issue firing from a supersonic platform ingame.

The only issue with making the AGM-48 available on the Vortex but not the Ifrit is the implication that it’s a BDF missile- what does that mean for the Compass? Might be easier to just make a new BDF-specific-missile

[lime bramble]

lore reason, the thin fins dont like supersonic speeds for long periods of time example

[rocky condor]

make it not painfully slow

[solid kettle]

Top speed of the Vortex is currently pretty realistic for its design. The Revoker and Ifrit should remain significantly faster than it

[fickle tundra]

new BDF anti tank missile with a unique design would be neat, only slightly larger than the 48 but has some other mechanic

[solid kettle]

Or just implement a subsonic launch requirement. The F-35C can fire hellfires, for example, which I doubt are rated for supersonic launches

[rocky condor]

actually how about just the same celing as the ifrit and maybe some agility improvements

[solid kettle]

No? That’s turning the Vortex into something it fundamentally isn’t, and also “agility buffs” beyond vortex lift would require changing the airframe, which isn’t happening.

The Vortex can already reach within a few thousand feet of the Ifrit’s flight ceiling, however it’s not a high altitude fighter like the Ifrit is and shouldn’t be buffed to force into some semblance of one when it physically isn’t

[rocky condor]

no it wouldnt change the airframe to upgrade thrust vectoring or change flap angles
idk for sure if it can already but it should probably be able to supercruise at high altitude

i suppose there is a reason for the ifrit to be the most expensive fighter though

[lime bramble]

i dont think firing supersonic should be restricted in any way, its just the logistical part: missile with fragile fins doesnt like to be exposed to supersonic speeds for more than a couple seconds (which is usually after missile launch)

[naive knoll]

It’s very much supercruise-capable, and at lower altitudes than you’d think.

[solid kettle]

There's no real way to upgrade the thrust vectoring without changing the airframe- 3D TVC would be blocked by the empennage, it's pointless. And increasing "flap angles" sounds like a great way to induce more drag during maneuvers.

The Vortex already has supercruise (mainly as a side effect of how dynamic thrust isn't properly modeled, but still) and it's really good. The jet supercruises at Mach 1.5-1.6 around 40k ft (13k ft below it's flight ceiling, by the way). For context- the F-35A/B/C can't supercruise at all, and the vast majority of 4th gen and 5th gen jets can't. Very few can.

As I said in the main post- compared to the Ifrit, the Vortex will almost always be at a disadvantage kinematically by the sheer nature of the difference of its design. The goal of these series of buffs was to improve the Vortex's ability to compete but not turn it into an entirely different aircraft in a vain effort to make it an equal to the Ifrit- which it's not, and it's not supposed to be.

[fickle tundra]

Vortex at 5 aoa be like

[solid kettle]

yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah its uh

yeah

[dense cypress]

give it a rolling “corkscrew” maneuvering pattern for the terminal, its mostly top attack and spirals downwards quickly

[neat belfry]

Fleet carrier?
I mean it is as of now but you never know

[neat belfry]

Also
No. 1 is already true

[neat belfry]

ATP-1.

[fickle tundra]

Too small and slow

You won't really find portable ATGMs in fixed wings

[solid kettle]

Incorrect. After taking off and cruising at MIL, the Vortex is at 6.0 heat while the Ifrit is at 4.9 heat. The Vortex also afterburns at 8.8 heat while the Ifrit afterburns at 8.0 heat

This isn't an issue with the Ifrit being too cold- the Vortex runs too hot, specifically at MIL power, I think the hot afterburner makes a lot of sense considering the VTOL thrust.

[neat belfry]

Maybe it isnt the same across aircraft
But I SPECIFICALLY remember mitch saying it has reduced IR because of the bypass air vents at the end

[neat belfry]

AGM-48s arent that fast either

[solid kettle]

It has reduced IR from the vents but it still runs hotter than the Ifrit in game. Like the Tarantula having RCS reduction features- doesn't mean it's actually stealthy, just because it has it.

[neat belfry]

I'm just saying.

[lime bramble]

mitch just forgot to reduce the signature

[solid kettle]

You have got to be joking

[lime bramble]

no its supposed to be smaller

[lime crag]

They hated Cactus because he told them the truth

[dense cypress]

other than AGM65’s

[fickle tundra]

AGM-65s arent portable systems, i dont even know if they can be launched stationary, also wouldnt really consider it an ATGM

ATGMs are an offshoot of Guided Missiles designed to be small enough for infantry or ground vehicles to carry and are specifically designed to defeat heavy vehicle armor

[dense cypress]

fine, well then we can still say the hellfire(F35C and AC130’s), brimstones on the tornado, and APKWS on… well a lot of planes

[solid kettle]

Hellfire isn’t really an ATGM, neither is the JAGM

[dense cypress]

what do you want from me then smh

[solid kettle]

lmao it’s semantics, we’re all insane

[fickle tundra]

Hellfire and JAGM are designed for a wider range of targets, also isnt particularly small for ground vehicles, APKWS is a guidance kit for rockets and is also made for a wider range of targets

[dense cypress]

so what its gotta be an exclusively tank targeting munition??

[fickle tundra]

primary targets being tanks, and also being mildly portable, by the 70s ATGMs got small enough for infantry to lug around

[dense cypress]

sounds like the hellfire fits imo

[fair rampart]

Come on these are just semantics

[fickle tundra]

its more than twice the weight of the TOW and was only carried by aircrafts for a long time, armor was its primary role when it was conceptualized but its been upgraded to fill a general role, even then its still a bulky missile to use in a ground launched role

[fair rampart]

CosmicCactus = Nuke Jesus??

[fickle tundra]

also the hellfire isnt tube launched, which does make it a lot harder to use on ground systems, best used in canister launch systems, MML is a great example

[west wasp]

Yep.

They need to either make that thing run much colder, or just change the model and turn it into a 3D thrust vectoring plane like the Revoker.

[west wasp]

Which'd be fine if the engine weren't so underpowered that it couldn't hover without AB and lost significant TWR to even small weight additions.

[fickle tundra]

switching to a LOAN nozzle would fix the existential crisis that the useless box nozzle petals inhabit

like the two nozzle pedals are just on the top and bottom of the actual nozzle? not actually directing them?

[west wasp]

As in, just throw away the petals and turn it into a 3D TVC nozzle like the Revoker has.

Not like they're doing anything to help with the IR signature, and the engine is pretty sad to begin with.

[dense cypress]

tbh i dont think it needs 3D TVC, but a better 2D would be amazing

[signal kite]

Vortex already have 2D in horizontal fly and 3D in vertical

[signal kite]

I with friend turned off fully stability assist(without g stability assist and without angle speed stability assist) and seems vortex have very good agility, but he little hard get out from stall. And yes, he can do cobra on low speeds. He get good roll, and seems he don't need so high pitch rate. BTW he have VERY VERY good wing lift coefficient (what in real life not so good) now in real life wings have smaller wing lift coefficients at 20-30%. So... Vortex have VERY good fly characteristics, and stable(without full stability assist he very unstable on big AOA), so.... One buff which he have sense to get - roll

[dense cypress]

yes and i think it should stay that way

[timid roost]

Going back to the original ideas:

• IR sig reduction at mil power is a must
• I think vortex being the test bed for IRST /EOTS is a great idea.
• 6 Scythes would be too much imo, I think a better concept could be side bayed S1s. Doctrinally for self-defence missile intercept
• For the aero performance, I'm up for more lift but I sort of like the quirks of its engine power. Doing engine increase alongside lift buff could be too much

[solid kettle]

There’s no room for additional side bays and the aircraft already has plenty of high capacity internal IR missile loadouts, it needs a better BVR loadout. If not 6 Scythes, then 4 Scythes + 2 S2s would be better than nothing.

[timid roost]

Yes sorry, rather than side-bays should be "what can be reasonably squeezed into the existing bays". I don't bother looking at the models, but would door mounting an extra munition give any more potential space, like how F-35 does? 2 scythes in the bay + (S1 or S2) on the inside of the door, snuggling between the scythes when the door is closed, but giving adequate separation for release when the door is open?

Plus this could give some A2A capability even when going internal only, full A2G loadout

[hard timber]

I think that vortex in concept relys on advanced missles but ifrit will rely on maneuvarability in dogfight

[solid kettle]

It already has very adequate mixed internal payloads for its price point via PAB 125s.

Again, the biggest issue is BVR and more heatseekers won’t help that.

As far as A2G goes, it’s the full external load that needs help.

[timid roost]

My suggestion addresses a seperate pain, which is the total lack of A2A (minus the gun) when you're taking a worthwhile loadout for A2G, (when internal/stealth)

BVR pains, I'm for accepting the current loadout for internal, but giving a 3xARH for external loadouts.

[solid kettle]

You can take two Scythes and 8 internal 125s, that’s pretty darn good for the price point.

[timid roost]

consider me corrected, forgot about that option

[solid kettle]

The JAGM suggestion was more external/total capacity focused, to help the Vortex compete with the Compass for efficiency and ease of use, and to give it a unique feature making it an interesting alternative to the Ifrit.

[lime bramble]

the vortex bays are not deep at all, so putting missiles on the door does not increase capacity

capacity would be increased in the case of the ifrit

[radiant garden]

Ya but is there the possibility where you could create enough space to fit a extra scythe in the central bays by fitting one scythe on one side of the bay attatched to the frame and another on the opposite side but attached to the door

Though the problem with the internal does mostly come down to the fact alot of realestate is taken up by a lift fan

[timid roost]

ye in the case of bays that are only 1 missile thick, putting one on the door helps not squeeze more in, but that when in firing config (i.e. doors open) there is more safe space between missiles

[solid kettle]

It doesn’t though. You can look at the images AAA posts, it’s how the missiles fit into the bays with the doors closed. Whether they’re attached to the doors or not isn’t relevant.

[timid roost]

What I'm saying is that the only relevance is for when you're firing, if theyre attached to the doors or not. For realistic safety - in-game with the perfect weapon release, attaching to door or not doesnt matter

[lime bramble]

let me reiterate: it does not matter

you can also see that the bays are as deep as they can be

[timid roost]

with perfectly folding fins, could you juuuust fit 3?

[lime bramble]

easily

[rocky condor]

is that the inner bay?
you could probably fit 2 without folding fins, would be a bit tight though

[lime bramble]

this is the left bay. the vortex has 2 bays total, one left and one right.

[rocky condor]

inner left bay, you could prob fit 2
4 in total for inner bay

[rocky condor]

oh i see, thanks

[timid roost]

is the current bay longer than the scythe? Could, rather than using folded fins, you just stagger them length-ways? So

---

---

From looking above

[lime bramble]

(folded forward fins)

[timid roost]

that be a strong nope

[rocky condor]

hmm
what about that thing on the f35 that adds 2 extra missiles internally i forgot what its called, how would it do on fs20

[lime bramble]

its where they put missiles on the bay doors, to maximize how much volume can be used. this is not applicable to the vortex, as the bays are very flat.

[radiant garden]

How about let the vortex carry a double mount on the outer wing pylons for S3s, scythes, pab-250s, and Pablos. I mean it can already carry a gpo-500 out there

[lime bramble]

not possible without obstructing the roll thrusters

[radiant garden]

It Has roll thrusters?

[lime bramble]

how would it roll in a hover otherwise?

[radiant garden]

Very badly with it's ailerons

[lime bramble]

which rely on airspeed

[radiant garden]

Ya, I thought thats why when you stall her out or are going forward very slowly you lose almost all roll authority

[lime bramble]

that is the case if you do not deploy the lift fan

[lime bramble]

this is the approximate area i would keep clear to avoid damage to the missiles while the roll ducts are active

missiles pictured are scythes

[radiant garden]

Screw it give her a AA triple mount like the revoker

[grave drift]

that's a qol mod idea for sure 🤔

[grave drift]

ass

whoever designed the FS series had the worst pylon placement in modern history

[radiant garden]

How does is fit the bomb triple mount then, are there 2 different triple mounts?

[opaque lance]

Bomb triple mounts are more compact iirc

[rocky condor]

give it its own custom triple mount

[radiant garden]

Cant the outer pylon so you could mount the double mount?

[rocky condor]

this illustration sucks but i hope it gets the point across, you could fix the angles and maybe do something like this

[grave drift]

how would you mount that 💀

[rocky condor]

its gonna be very similar but the missile rack is angled a bit

[solid kettle]

Would obstruct the roll thrusters then, won’t work

Would also really be a head scratcher for how the missiles would safely deploy

[rocky condor]

how about a pylon adapter that moves it outward just enough for the fin not to clip, idk how it would affect some outer pylons though

[solid kettle]

Would wreak havoc on the center of balance

There really isn’t a good way to make a triple rack of missiles work externally AFAIK

For context, the F-35B has significantly larger wings (and is larger overall) and has much more loadout flexibility and capability because of it.

[rocky condor]

how would it mess up center of balance considering the weight of the scythes i dont think they are much

maybe this? sorry about the attachment being weird

[solid kettle]

This is an aircraft that has to hover with its payload, shifting the payload forward or back by even small amounts will absolutely screw up its center of balance

[rocky condor]

It would be just as low as the bottom one, which shouldnt cause any problems unless fins clip
Would look funny though

Im sure this proposition here is better, scrap the idea of moving the pylons

[solid kettle]

Not enough room for safe missile separation, fins would hit, and the door would hit the fins

It’s pretty clear it physically won’t work- even then it doesn’t solve the issue of the Vortex’s stealth BVR capabilities being too limited for the price point.

[rocky condor]

It still carries good missile amounts, what about giving the engine a small tune up in accel and slightly better max alt

[dense cypress]

same for the revoker tbh, i feel like a couple planes could use a little fitment sorting

[solid kettle]

It doesn’t need a higher altitude

I’ve already walked through the suggestions, reread the post

[rocky condor]

With the ifrit i can go high and fast with 6 scythes and 2 irs while still being stealthy
Its very op

Vortex? sluggish

Revoker? Idk if it can supercruise, doesnt feel too well at max altitude last time i checked

Ifrit just goes mach 2 on MIL

What do you think could improve

[solid kettle]

The Ifrit isn’t overperforming- it’s performing exactly the way it should for its rank and price

The Vortex can reach 53k ft while the Ifrit tops out at 57k ft, they’re pretty comparable in altitude.

The Vortex can supercruise at Mach 1.6, top speed and altitude are not an issue with the Vortex.

[rocky condor]

I think you can fit in 6 scythes if you modify the airframe to a degree
You have to make the belly a bit chunkier

And reducing the IR or strengthening jammer could work
or a tune up in high altitude agility if possible

[lime bramble]

or its just designed for smaller amounts of missiles

[solid kettle]

I think you’re trying to turn the Vortex into an aircraft it’s fundamentally not supposed to be, at this point

[lime bramble]

i seriously think the vortex's external payload is enough, a compact ARH missile is all we need really

[rocky condor]

why did we not think of this

i know the us has some sort of missile program for a compact arh i forgot what its called

[lime bramble]

we have

[solid kettle]

“We” did, scroll up

Read the thread before commenting please

[lime bramble]

-# Read the thread before commenting please
well...

[solid kettle]

That’s like 15 minutes of reading tops

[rocky condor]

oh this i see
it could probably carry 8 internally if lucky

also id prefer it if youd do an @ off reply just so i can have quick access

[lime bramble]

theres the issue really, not everyone wants to do that (lord knows i dont)

[solid kettle]

Nobody has to

Well, you might, price of wearing a green flair I suppose

[lime bramble]

i dont read every single suggestion either

[rocky condor]

its unclear to me on things that a majority already agreed as things not to do

[radiant garden]

Ok so here is my suggestion, we throw the vortex in the bin call it a failure, fire all the admirals and generals in charge of it's procurement, blacklist it's manufacturer, Lampoon the Secretary of the Navy and Navy's Chief of staff in a public hearing, and charge everyone involved with fraud waste and abuse, and move on with our lives.

[rocky condor]

Make it more stable when landing
Could be a skill issue but it feels funny to land it, i can land well on hyperions with an ifrit though

[solid kettle]

You can literally engage the auto hover if you need to

That’s entirely a skill issue, with the exception of needing to afterburn to ascend- that should be tweaked IMO

[rocky condor]

When i engage autohover its weird when im trying to descend

[unique bloom]

i find manual more comfortable to land at least i know where i want the nozzle to be

[west wasp]

Honestly, I'm with Ray on this one.

Damned thing bounces because you need the AB on to regulate speed

[unique bloom]

i've allways seen it balance like a sideways egg on my mind

[dense cypress]

i agree to an extent that its a practice thing or “skill issue”, but hes kinda right the vortex is imo relatively the hardest thing to land vertically, and yes im including the medusa with that

[neat belfry]

or just make the things the missile sits on shorter so its closer to the middle

[summer wind]

I just want this thing to have less ir and be more nimble than a compass on heavy weight

[radiant garden]

The wings are too stubby and she is too heavy

[fickle tundra]

Ah yes, G limit of 3

[rancid flicker]

Hey man 3 is average

[summer wind]

I do wonder what an aam-whatever would look like for the vortex, technically the s2 is made specifically for inner bays so i dont see why we couldnt get a shorter range arh

Or even sarh the hell we care anything new in NO is a warm welcome mostlyif its an entirely new system like the laser mechanic

[fickle tundra]

Derby is a good example, its a 6 inch fuselage (like all other modern IRs such as the Python its based on, Sidewinders still use 5 inch) but a bit longer and swaps out the IR seeker for an ARH seeker, could use that as a base + low profile lift design for a Scythe downsized missile like S2 is to S3

[summer wind]

Tbh yea derby sized, or maybe a "low rcs" one or whatever that just folds its control surface like we all say scythe should do lol

[fickle tundra]

low profile lift strake design like an ESSM and perhaps like folding grid fins for aero control, should make a small maneuverable package for the ranges an ARH like this would be effective at

[summer wind]

True but it needs a special thing so its not just a scythe with less range, maybe an easier jam time, maybe make a suggestion for such a missiles i already posted one and cant rn

[fickle tundra]

maybe, an ARH made for close range might be a bit strong

[summer wind]

Depends either just make scythe have foldable fins or make like i dunno a "maddog" only missiles for short range low tier planes that has an arh guidance on higher tier but maneuvers badly

[fickle tundra]

depends on if mitch wants to change the scythe that way, he already did the S2 option to have more missiles in the bays at the cost of range, why not Scythe, he also added a longer range alternative in the Scimitar

[summer wind]

I mean scythe are already pretty good as is, would love to find a way to cram a 3rd scythe in the bay too, depends on mitch opinion there hopin he reacts to this suggestion

[fickle tundra]

im just starting to like the potential idea of a Short-Medum range ARH like Derby

[solid kettle]

The problem is the Vortex doesn’t need a short-medium range ARH missile

[dense cypress]

its issue has always been BVR

[solid kettle]

It has plenty of short-medium range options with S2 and S3 loadouts

The Vortex needs better internal BVR options, so something with comparable range to a Scythe or greater

I’d rather just get a 4x Scythe + 2x S2 loadout if we can’t get a 6x Scythe loadout, than a shorter range ARH that doesn’t solve the fundamental problem with its BVR loadout

TL;DR: Derby won’t fix anything unless it’s very close to the Scythe in range

[fickle tundra]

Derby is BVR but like, barely i mean, short-medium in the space of BVRAAMs, Scythe is considered medium range

~20 miles would be its max effective while Scythe can go 30-40

[solid kettle]

Yeah that’s too short tbh

[fickle tundra]

it would be neat to have though

[solid kettle]

Sure, but it wouldn’t fix the Vortex’s problems any more than S3s do

[fickle tundra]

yeah probably, they'd just be ARH S3s with slightly better kinematics and range

[rotund marten]

instead of being a smaller scythe, could make these new missiles a smaller scimitar. ramjet engine would give them good range

[fickle tundra]

that would be a scythe, which we already have

[rotund marten]

no? they have different propulsion methods and effective scenarios, scimi takes time to get up to speed and seems to be a bit less maneuverable, but has a lot more energy and max range

[fickle tundra]

that would be a weird niche to have, being a shorter range scimitar with the same downsides

[rotund marten]

could give it an initial rocket booster to get it up to speed, possibly have the tradeoff of proportionally lower payload per missile size as well in exchange for maneuverability

[fickle tundra]

the scimitar has a rocket booster, and warhead size really doesnt matter much

[solid kettle]

I’d rather just push for the Vortex’s bay to get tweaked in size (or for Scythes to get folding fins internally) instead of pushing for an almost-but-not-quite-Scythe

The Scythe represents the bare minimum for effective BVR weapon, anything shorter than it in range ain’t worth it IMO

[fickle tundra]

perhaps a Derby sized ARH would do well for lower rank aircraft but still be an S3 alternative for higher rank

[solid kettle]

Meh, seems like it’s unrealistic. What modern, in use AAM has less range than a Scythe?

Feels like a similar discussion as adding SARHs like the Sparrow- why would that even exist in 2070?

[unique bloom]

make it expand it's belly a bit, it could work

[fickle tundra]

Derby

apparently I-Derby ER has double the range at 100km, so i would assume that translates to early AIM-120C effective ranges

[solid kettle]

very much the exception and not the norm, and even then has relatively close effective range to the Scythe (50km)

[fickle tundra]

was suggesting ranges in relation to NO flight envelopes, Scythe realistically would have like D3 ranges, a 20 mile missile would be neat since the S3 only goes 10 at most and S2 lower than that

[grave drift]

vortex might be able to take advantage of canted outer pylons for single aams though

it wouldn't break liveries like other solutions would, and since we already know that 1x pylons return to 0 rcs and start with 0.01 rcs or something like that, canted pylons could instead only have 0.005 or less rcs to make 6x aam perform similar to the ifrit (additionally, once 2 aams are fired (outer) the rcs returns to 0)

[solid kettle]

Would 0.005 RCS on the outer canted pylons give the Vortex the same overall RCS as the Ifrit?

I could see this working if that was the case

[grave drift]

the vortex has an rcs of 0.001 so 0.005 on each canted pylon would bring it up to 0.011, versus 0.002 for ifrit

i guess you could make it like 0.001 per canted pylon too so that total is 0.003, and fired 2 is 0.001

[dense cypress]

insane how much such tiny amounts can impact

[grave drift]

since rcs is a log it doesn't matter as much, 0.001 and 0.002 rcs is like 7500m and 8500m detection difference

*not really a log. should be square (?)

[solid kettle]

This seems more appropriate IMO, and fits with the design philosophy behind the Vortex for BDF

[unique bloom]

what if you expanded the side bays a bit.

you could fit something small in there like a sensor or a second more powerful jammer

[fickle tundra]

those are the landing gears

[solid kettle]

The Vortex really doesn’t have any extra unused space

Very different than the Ifrit which practically had modeled heater bays from the get go

[unique bloom]

oh i'm dumb as rocks

i think folding the wingtips of radar missiles for the vortex is the most sensible option for that problem

[worn moss]

For the wing mount triple rack, couldn't the outer fuselage doors just hinge in half like the Raptor?

[solid kettle]

That’s the gear bay door that clips with the missile, so no, it can’t

[worn moss]

Subdivide the gear door? It's a door. I'm sorry I misunderstood which door.

[solid kettle]

The gear door can’t be subdivided easily because the landing gear extend downwards requiring the majority of the door to hinge out and away. There’s no room for the other half of a hinged door because the curve of the fuselage is in the way.

The Vortex also already has split gear bay doors, it can’t be any more split than it already is.

So no, it’s not just “a door”

[unique bloom]

i guess the compactness of the vortex is really making it hard to modify, so it's a back to square one

[solid kettle]

The exterior missile loadout doesn’t matter as much for the Vortex- that’s 100% the territory of the Revoker. The internal BVR capability is what is noticeably lacking for the jet.

6x Scythes internally would be great. Reduced RCS canted pylons would be a workaround, while 4 internal Scythes + 2 S2s would be a mediocre compromise.

[rotund marten]

folding fin scythes would be a good thing i think

[unique bloom]

That was said before. I guess there's no going around that idea.

[lime bramble]

not that im against it but i feel you are heavily overselling the value of 6 scythes in the bay

[unique bloom]

I would rather be able to equip scimitars as well.

[lime bramble]

same difference

BVR performance doesnt matter as much in a world where a medusa can just shut down your missiles and players can turn to notch in 3s

[solid kettle]

I mean, maybe, but I’m trying to work within the confines of the aircraft.

In a perfect world BDF wouldn’t have just the Vortex as their top fighter and the whole roster would be more diverse.

[lime bramble]

i think a BDF Zuperfighter is on the way

[unique bloom]

I hope it looks like the X36 drone, it's the best look for a 6th generation aircraft out there.

[solid kettle]

This is why we need HOJ for the Scythe and Scimitar tbh

Too easy for Medusas to neuter them, not a good representation of how EW works in air combat

[lime bramble]

Vortex would be a strange place to end with in terms of capability

[lime bramble]

so the missiles go for the medusa 30 miles off instead of the fighter with nukes i guess

[solid kettle]

Better than them just not tracking at all

EW in general is really badly implemented for air combat specifically

[radiant garden]

There just needs to be somekind of anti medusa counter measure/weapon other then sitting in a medusa jamming the other while being jammed by the medusa for the whole game

[unique bloom]

i barely feel it makes a difference on the battlefield, also being locked behind range 4 makes people not being able to practice against other players most of the time

[radiant garden]

A medusa can make a massive difference

[solid kettle]

You have yet to fight a team with really good Medusa pilots then. There’s very little counterplay if the Medusa is utilized right, and it’s almost toxic to deal with

Note: this is not the Medusa pilots fault, it’s the byproduct of a still very rudimentary but powerful mechanic

[radiant garden]

Medusas can single handidly shut down BVR, anti-shipping strikes, and deep penetration strikes, while have a get out of jail card against all the weapons that can reach then, and then positively trade in time against any of those people who try to close in to IR range. If the other team runs a Medusa and micros their fleet into a fleet ball on ignus the game become a painful slog for the your team.

[unique bloom]

i've had a couple of times where the medusa was a nuisance but since most of the time they are aiming at ground targets or are so far away i ignore them

[solid kettle]

Even with a potential high end BDF fighter to augment the Vortex, seeing how close the jet is to fitting 6 Scythes in the bay really makes me want it.

But 4x Scythes + 2 S2s is even more palatable if there’s a proper air dominance fighter to support the Vortex.

[radiant garden]

I mean it's not really needed yet since they haven't divorced the factions and the planes yet. I mean ironically the ifrit is a good stand in for the BDFs land base stealth airsuperiority fight. I think they are right now just trying to fill out all the roles they want to have before they start giving the factions they own equivalents for everything

[dense cypress]

however it makes them actually need to counter/evade them at minimum, while its a significantly worse shot its better than it being trashed instantly

[radiant garden]

It also means they can't just defeat missiles intended for them by using the jamming pods

[trim bloom]

💀

[solid kettle]

The Ifrit is 100% the high end fighter for PALA, it’s balanced really well for that post buffs. I doubt it’ll need anything major… ever, really, as long as it retains its current performance, even if it fights a superior BDF fighter.

But the faction divorce is coming and simultaneously the Vortex struggles to justify the 90 mil price point. I still think some or all of the buffs are very much worth considering.

[solid kettle]

They’re long gone now, but the three part (three separate post) Balancing The Ifrit series (that lead to heater bays and major performance buffs last patch) had a word count greater than the Bible.

I, uh, specifically tried to avoid that this go around. So far so good.

[radiant garden]

I just think there arn't enough airframes for either side to fill out a complete roster, and it's likely in the update where they finalize the divorce they'll add one or two airframes to fill any major empty gaps left by the absence of the other sides planes

[solid kettle]

Two important caveats to that-

1. The Vortex deserves to be worth its price point, even if there’s a dozen other stealth aircraft in game. However, the Vortex will always be compared against the Ifrit as both are each factions main naval fighters, so it’s still worth comparing how they stack up against each other in the context of their price and role even if BDF will get another jet

2. It takes the Devs like 1/3rd of a year to add a single jet, and the current official unofficial backlog of aircraft takes us well into 2026 before we can even hope to see a proper BDF stealth air dominance fighter- heck, it hasn’t even been announced, the literal official word is that the Vortex is the Ifrit competitor and that’s that. Until that changes, I say balance it appropriately within the context of the limitations of the airframe.

[grave drift]

until then i advise vortex mains to take 6 scythes and 4/6 ir, or 6/8 scythes via 1x external pylon

again, single pylons drop to 0 rcs

[radiant garden]

1. I mean it's ok if bdf falls behind in the naval fighter game, the factions don't have to exactly equally capable in each regard.
2. Like I said earlier the divorce hasn't happened yet BDF pilots can still operate the ifrit as a land based Airsuperiority fighter
3. If the vortex is it and it's the top of the line aircraft for the BDF then it can be buffed til it can directly compete with the ifrit in BVR.

[unique bloom]

you can't make them balance each other out fully tbh, both are different roles even if they share being naval, multirole and stealth to some degree, if it was for dogfigthing, the vortex would be cooked simply beacuse the irfrit has more thurst than the vortex by default

[radiant garden]

I think the only buffs the vortex needs is a buff to it's engines, setting it's magnification to 1, and maybe slight increase to it's to it's external payload. Also give it the lowered IR sig it's apperently suppose to have.

[unique bloom]

i still belive the boscali forces need a heavy fighter

[radiant garden]

Ah from what we've seen so far it seems the BDF doctrinally favors Light weight single engined fighters with Delta wings/Modified Delta wings. Plus they have the Darkreach for trucking around lots of heavy ordinance. So I don't think we are getting a heavy BDF fighter.

[unique bloom]

i still see the gaps on that doctrine, if the split were to occur right now both sides would fold like toilet paper anyway

[solid kettle]

The Vortex should offer 3/4 the capability of the Ifrit, roughly, considering it's price and rank, and as a stealth fighter it really doesn't do that for BVR. That's the problem with air to air, and why I'm suggesting it get new internal missile loadouts.

[radiant garden]

Ya but it's more of a fighter bomber then an airsuperiority fighter.

[dense cypress]

while to a degree i understand and agree there definitely feels like theres a missing role or two for bdf

[unique bloom]

And there's a whole gap in the rank 2 fighters that get filled by helicopters.

[radiant garden]

BDF could use a Air superiority stealth fighter, and a light attack aircraft. But Pala is missing a 4th gen Fighter, and a Bomber, a 0 rank Coin aircraft, and generally goes from 0 to 100 between the compass and Ifrit.

Though thinking about it I think BDF doesn't 100% need a VTOL light attack if got a Land based dedicated ultra light low supersonic fighter like one of the other suggestion and/or a land based dedicated ground attack ordenance truck

[dense cypress]

ngl my headcannon is that the Cricket is one of those cheap airframes that seemingly everyone and their mother has, like irl F16’s, F5’s, tbh kinda F15’s, you get the idea.

basically i think the cricket is a fine exception for the need for equivalents, however i wont argue against another cricket equivalent because i love those little guys

[solid kettle]

The Vortex is very much a fighter, not a fighter bomber. It's designed to be a capable air superority fighter, whereas "fighter bombers"... aren't.

A better description of the Vortex is a strike fighter- but even then it's still very much an air superority fighter, and is balanced as one. It's just not an air dominance platform like the Ifrit is, conceptually. And it's also not an older generation of air superority fighter like the Revoker, that still retains relevancy through sheer kinematic performance and payload.

[dense cypress]

exactly, both the vortex and the revoker are designed for air superiority, bit the ifrit truly is an “air dominance” fighter

[fickle tundra]

Those mean the same thing

[solid kettle]

The Ifrit may have been described as a multirole fighter during its conception but when Mitch drew heavily on twin engine heavy fighters for reference... he created a twin engine heavy stealth fighter, with all the strengths that entails.

The Vortex is similar in how it sucks, honestly. By hyperfixating on the "light STOVL fighter" and going with the loser of the JSF competition for inspiration, the Vortex is conceptually limited. It's still a single engine stealth fighter- not a fighter bomber- but, uh, just by sheer stint of it's design, it's very limited.

[dense cypress]

wrong, air superiority and air dominance are definitely different roles

VERY overlapping, because obviously, but they’re different

[solid kettle]

I mean yes but I'm also simplifing a lot of history with those terms. Air superiority is a really really broad phrase and there have been generations of fighters with different niches and focuses that all claim to be air superiority fighters.

By describing the Ifrit as an air dominance fighter, I'm attempting to distill the motive force behind both the ATF program (YF-23/F-22) and the development of the Su-57, and how all three of those aircraft were designed to spearhead offensive and defensive air operations in highly lethal peer v peer air wars. When Mitch drew on those three designs for the Ifrit, he also drew on the role those three aircraft were designed to excel at, just by the fact that the Ifrit is physically designed with the same type of performance in mind. Now apply that same logic to the Vortex and uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh yeah. Yeah, uhhhh, yeah.

TL;DR: nobody should be surprised the Vortex struggles when it's based off the freaking X-32 lmfao

[fickle tundra]

On top of the actual unrealistic energy retention or lack there of

[solid kettle]

All the things wrong with the jet (some of which appear to be blatant oversights which is really great lmfao) certainly don't help

[dense cypress]

yeahhhh, while i absolutely understand wanting a F35B but not an F35 i feel like the vortex shouldnt be surprising when its not the best

[fickle tundra]

Still, a critical component to the aero of these type of aircraft is missing and they suffer for it

[dense cypress]

absolutely agreed

[radiant garden]

Ok so Air Superority fighter vs Air dominance Fighter is just the same type of aircraft with the same mission it's just one is using a more hype term

[dense cypress]

air superiority allows a side to conduct air operations without prohibitive interference, while air dominance signifies a state where the opposing air force is essentially incapable of effective interference.

[radiant garden]

Yes those are different state of a air war/battle. But what is the difference between a air superiority fighter and an air dominance fighter

[dense cypress]

think F16 vs F22, both very capable air to air forces, however one is a fairly larger advantage and focus

[radiant garden]

So describe how an air superiority fighter would be designed differently to an air dominance fighter using similar technology and how their mission profiles would be different. Cause you just describe two planes initially designed to do the same thing with the only difference is one is a newer design with newer technology.

[potent kindle]

They kinda are, but think like this, And air superiority fighter hunts multiroles, and is even with other fighters, an air supremacy fighter hunts everything

[radiant garden]

The only difference is really that superiority doeasn't sell airframes as well as it did, so now it's Dominance, it just marketing

[unique bloom]

btw the f 16 pilot would be crapping his pants the whole time, just because an aircraft has a possibility to win against the f 22, it's still quite slim, and even then most countries who operate light fighters still have a heavy fighter to some degree if they can afford to.

[fair rampart]

Yeah that really is weird, isn’t it?

It kinda negates the need to go out with a stealth loadout, since you can pack some scimitars on your outer pylons, fire them off, and then just be pure stealth while getting some missiles in the air before they can fire at you

[dense cypress]

largely yes, however a supremacy fighter is say an escort fighter, meant to work in teams to overwhelm and overrun, an air dominance fighter is designed to sweep the field, be a magnitude difference in force multiplier

[radiant garden]

The second one is just the mission of an air superiority fighter, an air superiority fighter and escort fighter are two different things.

[dense cypress]

you’re purposely being dense it feels like, im going around in circles here, yes the two genres of air patrol are similar of course they are

[teal fox]

they what
why has no one told me

all this time i could've been lugging around more missiles

[unique bloom]

in more simple terms, it's like: Big aircraft go faster carry more and if designed to be maneuverable it's deadlier than single engine aircraft that in order to match same ordinance as big one sacrifices speed and maneuverability, which in turn make it have a disadvantage against the big one. it's not that hard to understand this concept

[radiant garden]

The difference between an air superiority fighter and a air dominance fighter is that ones bigger. But share the same design goals, tactics, and missions.

So the f-15, su-27, mig-29 are Air dominance fighters and The F-16, the Eurofighter typhoon are airsuperiority fighters?

[solid kettle]

The better way to look at it is the F-16 and MiG-29 are light fighters while the F-15 and Su-27 are heavy fighters. The Vortex is a light fighter, the Ifrit is a heavy fighter.

The problem with using light/heavy in NO is many people think the Compass is a light fighter... which is really isn't, not technically. But it's much much easier to use air dominance to describe the characteristics that modern heavy fighters embody and that modern light fighters don't, namely high speed supercruise + high top speed, significantly extended range and payload, and kinematic capabilities optimized for high altitude BVR engagements.

The Vortex is not a fighter with kinematics optimized for high altitude BVR, it is not a fighter with extended range and payload, its supercruise is the byproduct of a flaw in the game's modeling of thrust (no dynamic thrust, RIP) and it does not have a high top speed. It's not designed with the same priorities in mind as the Ifrit is- and it's not based on aircraft that are designed with the same priorities in mind that the aircraft the Ifrit was based on had.

BDF has two light fighters, PALA has one heavy fighter. It would be nice to see BDF get a proper heavy fighter (preferably something stealth, as to properly augment the Vortex against the Ifrit) while PALA could use something at Rank 3, light or heavy, honestly.

[frank hazel]

So you could also say air superiority fighters are supposed to deny their local airspace and and air dominance fighter is supposed to deny a wide section of the front

[solid kettle]

Practically speaking yeah that seems to be a good interpretation of a very informal usage of those terms

[rocky condor]

I think the vortex is a decent stealth attacker

[rancid flicker]

Most educated nuclear option player comment

[summer wind]

I wonder why

[fickle tundra]

number of weapon stations, also its a stealth aircraft, and theres only two "stealth attackers", so statistically speaking on an internal only loadout, the Vortex is the worst stealth attacker

[dense cypress]

yes, that’s not the issue.

the issue is that in the fighter department its lacking, despite supposed to be a challenger for the ifrit.

[nocturne pulsar]

Someone mentioned this higher up, but i really think step 1 should be increasing the Vortex's optical detection range. It's a simple buff to both A2G and radar-off A2A, it's thematically appropriate for an F-35-like, and it would fill an interesting niche (high-end recon).

[solid kettle]

I (finally) made that bug report https://discord.com/channels/909034158205059082/1391114396532604999

[teal fox]

#1379153402675724389 message
https://tenor.com/view/squidward-spare-change-spare-some-change-begging-poor-gif-18999842

[rocky condor]

i see
i think toaster is right
adding this on is improving the radar a bit
F35 irl has a very good radar

Another thing ik this probably is overboard but you could maybe get a pair of mini jammers that are half as powerful as the medusas

I think fs20 should have better recon after reading what toast said, adding more onto him is its already stealthiest plane in game. Reduce IR signature a bit, improve optical and maybe even radar, potential mini jammers

[rocky condor]

Technically true considering there are only two, FS20 is only better cost wise and deck stability wise

I honestly dont know what to do for A2A
A2G just give it a few extra designators if it isnt adequate right now, i havent played NO in a bit
Recon/EW, better optical and radar

[west wasp]

A better engine. Seriously; the Vortex has less power than a single Ifrit engine and it shows.

A more powerful engine would allow it to not lose as much TWR to munitions, perform a little better in some aspects, and hopefully hover without AB (the need for AB to hover is just a PITA when trying to land the plane, and a better engine would go a long way to making landings more comfortable).

[teal fox]

the engine is good enough, it's the energy retention that suffers
it loses too much speed from turning

[tropic meteor]

Got an idea, no need to change the Scythe. Something like the AIM-160 SACM/CUDA. It’s a medium range A2A missile with no warhead, relying instead on kinetic energy and hit-to-kill (and as far as I’m aware all A2A missiles in-game already are this way). It’s the effective successor of the AIM-120 AMRAAM in the medium range A2A role. Could fit two in the space of a single Scythe. For gameplay, it doesn’t need to be a replacement of the scythes; I wouldn’t expect it to be a guaranteed kill if it hits on large/durable targets like the Medusa, Darkreach, Tarantula, or even Chicane (I’ve tanked/seen it tank Scythes and keep flying).

The Vortex’s IRL peers will be equipped with this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-160_SACM

Another valid downside whereas a I might prefer a Scythe over something like this is in a short range engagement; this missile might not have gained enough energy to guarantee a kill. Meanwhile, the Scythe has a warhead. Still, the flip side for this is you can probably carry twice as many.

[unique bloom]

i wonder how many of these can an ifrit carry

[fickle tundra]

General Dynamics/Westinghouse AIM-152 AAAM (bottom design)

AIM-54 replacement, only slightly longer than the AIM-120 (3658mm vs 3650mm) (entire system with booster, the missile itself is pretty cute and small)

the fun part? 5.5 inch diameter, the Sidewinder is 5 inch and the AMRAAM is 7 inch, a folding fin design would very much fit in S3 size parameters

a staged booster AAM design would be interesting (also its config is of the peak)

[grave drift]

technically basically all NO missiles are dual stage single motor missiles

[agile valley]

How so?

[grave drift]

they have 2 thrust stages in one motor

you can verify this by checking the motors array within each missile component, almost all have at least 2

[fickle tundra]

so just boost-sustain motors?

[shadow rain]

need tiny missiles that arent just manpads they are the way of the future

[west wasp]

MMR S2?

[rotund marten]

bonksile

[crimson ice]

Is that second image an SM-1 in an air-launchable container or something?

[fickle tundra]

GD/Westinghouse AIM-152

[tropic meteor]

About 12, just counting internal bays, guessing it would only take half the space and length of a Scythe.

For the Vortex, a missile like this would up its internal only A2A capacity from 4 Scythes to at least 8 of these, possibly more if has a small enough diameter.

[rotund marten]

a slightly smaller diameter or folding fins would allow it to fit 12 as well, matching the ifrit. though it'd still lose out on the heater bays and in kinematics and overall mobility

depending on where the fins are it could even hold 10 if they are the same diameter, by offsetting one of them to not intersect fins, i think

[dense cypress]

4 in each bay

[shadow rain]

im mean more like peregrine (amraam range with 9x maneuverability in a missile that's half the weight and length)

[agile valley]

Solid rocket motors can have different grain geometry (the shape of the solid fuel inside the motor) that dictate thrust performance over time

[agile valley]

Forgot to send this: The dual pulse motor is different in that it activates the second pulse at an optimal time

[spiral badge]

yeah I'm with you on this a more efficient thrust w/o AB would be nice and maybe a way to somewhat balance it is reduce the AB thrust a little so it keeps the current speed the same

[solid kettle]

Yeah, the cruising speed and top speed of the Vortex is fine, but that doesn't mean the thrust is.

It's also indicative of a larger problem with all supersonic aircraft- dynamic thrust isn't modeled AFAIK, and acceleration is pretty linear until you hit each aircraft's specific drag. Because of that, all nerfs/buffs are tinkering with the raw thrust, which has... unintended consequences in other regimes of flight.

[signal kite]

437 messages. OMG. How much. Mitch will die when read this all...

[solid kettle]

Meh, still nowhere close to Balancing The Ifrit Parts 1-3.

[rancid flicker]

if, not when

[solid kettle]

remember, the suggestion forum is a pysop, real balancing power rests in the hands of the [REDACTED]

[rancid flicker]

And cactus was never seen again

[solid kettle]

in your dreams silly deembedinator slinger, in your dreams...

[opaque lance]

The mystical Blue Names

[summer wind]

The mystical ww2 aircraft

[chilly sentinel]

Honestly I don't think the Vortex should be competitive with the Ifrit. The vortex, like the real F-35, makes concessions to its capabilities in the name of stealth and/or STOVL capability. It's not as maneuverable as the F-16, can't carry as much as an F-15, and is slightly heavier to boot. If you put an F-35B up against a dedicated air superiority fighter in a dogfight, it will lose. That's just a very expensive game of rock paper scissors. The vortex's advantage is that its VTOL capabilities let it operate off of a much wider selection of takeoff/landing sites than the Ifrit. The Ifrit's advantage is its twin engines, giant lifting area, and lots of pylons that make it an extremely dangerous opponent in air to air combat. They're two different aircraft designed to operate in two different ways. Plus, if you make it so that any engagement between a vortex and an ifrit is a perfectly balanced coin flip, then you've just made it so that the BDF has access to an objectively better aircraft with more capabilities at a lower rank, which kind of renders the ifrit redundant and creates a new problem.

tl;dr buffing the vortex isn't necessary, it has advantages of its own outside of combat, and you'd be undermining the ifrit's balance as well

[fickle tundra]

the only thing that a stealth fighter sacrifices is hardpoints, otherwise flight performance is either the same or better (stealth fighters care more for kinematics, so they only prioritze frontal and side stealth). F-35 is noticeably more maneuverable than the F-16 in all aspects

360 stealth are only seen in deep strike aircraft such as the B-2

[opaque lance]

There's one tiny issue with that

The F-35 is absolutely fυcking insane

[solid kettle]

competitive =/= being a peer

[opaque lance]

I mean yea nobody ever said it should be equal to the Ifrit, just that it is currently in a terrible state

[west wasp]

3 points

1. The Vortex and Ifrit are both, at least at the moment, merely carrier capable aircraft.The amount of places where the Vortex can spawn and take off using its VTOL capability is functionally pretty much the same as the places where the Ifrit can take off with the STOVL capabilities. These are 2 aircraft filling the same niche in different ways.

2. Even if we ignore the fact that the VTOL capability on the Vortex is not as valuable in flight as that on something like the Medusa (being incapable of VIFFing), the fact remains that the Vortex engine is so underpowered that it needs to engage AB to even use VTOL; this makes the experience of even using the VTOL capability that the plane does have a pain, often functionally slower and more painful to land than regular planes because of just how careful you have to be thanks to the AB creating a hair's breath of difference between the amount of thrust needed for a safe vertical landing and the amount of thrust that will see the plane bounce off the deck when landing.

3. The Vortex, even un regular flight, is underpowered and bugged even in regular flight. Leaving aside the pitifully small stealth loadout that it can carry (in a game where munition quantity matters a lot more), the IR signature is functionally bugged 7 ways to Sunday; and the underpowered engine makes it so that the plane loses even what little agility it does have to even the lightest munition loads, feeling sluggish and slow even with small A2A loadouts and just ending up feeling unfun and painfully underpowered as an airplane.

Despite these issues, there's unfortunately very few things that can be done for the Vortex without changing its design; the 2 things that can be done are fixing the badly bugged IR signature, and improving the painfully underpowered engine (to the point where it's worse than a single ifrit engine) so that the plane at least feels strong and fun to fly in the areas where its design allows.

[rocky condor]

This is mostly true, it felt sluggish and sloppy last time i flew in it, the ifrit on the other hand is super responsive and fast but kinda twitchy
vortex is super stable though
without changing design, you can give it a stronger radar or opticals and less of an IR signature, making it a better scout, and would also be helpful in being a human ASHM300

[teal fox]

speaking of being careful, i feel like the rear landing gear is too flimsy
no munitions and 13% fuel and it still breaks at like 3m/s vertically

[west wasp]

That, or it just tends to land really hard.

The throttle difference between hovering, shooting into the sky, and dropping like a rock is a thin as a hair for the Vortex in many cases

[frank hazel]

yeah i always do FAA style rolling STVOL landings in the vortex

[unique bloom]

it's really flimsy for something i would expect from a naval capable aircraft

[teal fox]

that's true
i feel like the throttle should be a lot less sensitive when in vertical flight

KSP has a feature where if you press capslock all controls get severely reduced sensitivity, for precise maneuvers

[opaque lance]

People also seem to significantly overestimate the effect of the RCS compared to an Ifrit with Internals only

[fickle tundra]

They don't have strengthened gears like an carrier arresting hook equipped aircraft but they shouldn't be this weak

[grave drift]

🥀

[deft zodiac]

why don't we let the vortex also spawn at revetments?

[crimson ice]

Because the weather and outdoor effects would wear out the RAM coating

[deft zodiac]

counter point, tarp

and also salt water is worse for the vortex

[spiral sapphire]

revetment is too suceptable

[deft zodiac]

I'm not fully sure what you mean, do you mean against artillery or the elements?

[spiral sapphire]

Everything

stealth fighters are typically parked indoors on carriers to avoid saltwater

[deft zodiac]

true, but still it's at least something to allow the vortex to make up for what the plane lacks

[west wasp]

Honestly, it comes down to the plane engine and the fact that AB is how it manages to hover.

It really needs a more powerful engine.

Not like it's going to be competing with anything even if it did get a buff that way; it can't manoeuvre, and it's size limits just how much it can carry anyways.

[rocky condor]

I got trashed on for saying the same thing

The throttle response sucks
Needs more accel

[solid kettle]

There’s a difference in tweaking the engine for more responsive performance- and better thrust at low power settings- than straight up increasing the cruising speed and top speed.

[rocky condor]

I should have said better throttle response/accel, ill have to take a look but you could maybe fit some yaw thrust vectoring in

Yep, needs better accel and VTOL stability, just started flying it

[rocky condor]

@solid kettle can you explain why you disagree idk why you are saying no to tweaking the engine for responsiveness, it feels sluggish

[solid kettle]

I was specifically disagreeing with yaw TVC, the Vortex wouldn't be any better if it had yaw TVC and it also doesn't make sense with the physical model of the jet

[fickle tundra]

TVC is wildly overrated

[nocturne pulsar]

I think the revoker's TVC is very powerful, since i assume that's what makes it such a nasty UFO at low speed, but the vortex already has its VTOL system to enable similar low-speed shenanigans

[fickle tundra]

you know what the revoker also has? really good high speed kinematics

[nocturne pulsar]

Yeah, exactly. I tried flying the vortex in singleplayer recently, and oof, just turning leisurely to notch burns half your speed

[fickle tundra]

its so bad i think it defies the laws of physics

[rotund marten]

i mean. it pretty much does, it doesn't have vortex lift

[fickle tundra]

TRUE

[summer wind]

Revoker has this ufo fm due to not only having canards but also using all its control surfaces as roll+pitch, tvc helps to stabilize yaw mostly and well... spiiin

[vast plank]

something something stabilized something something canards modeling

[solid kettle]

Ok, this is not a suggestion for right now, but if we ever get aircraft variants years from now, it would be pretty cool to get a CTOL variant of the Vortex with the lift fan removed and a Medusa-esq DEW inserted in its place, drawing on the same power supply.

Again, very much not a suggestion for the Vortex at the moment, just a thought for way, waaaaaay down the road.

[worn moss]

Replace the fan with 9,999 additional cannon rounds and get the [REDACTED AIRCRAFT] fans to shut up.

[fickle tundra]

fuel tank

[teal fox]

external ammo pods on top of that

[rocky condor]

Give it the ability to spawn tornadoes that can throw vehicles and small structures around

[summer wind]

Literral vortex

[grave drift]

@solid kettle
QoL FS-20 Vortex with 105kN turbojet with a max IR signature of 6.5, 6x AAM-29 internal loadout and 2x IRM-S2 external loadout, canted pylons resulting in a total RCS of 0.0013 (compared to completely clean QoL RCS of 0.0008)

[naive knoll]

Is 6.5 IR sig in mil not worse than vanilla?

[grave drift]

meant 6.5 max, sorry

[naive knoll]

Oh, fair enough

[grave drift]

with significantly less parasitic thrust loss it can hover clean and at nearly no fuel with just 53% throttle

and it can hover full payload (max fuel, 6x pab-250 in bays, 2x augers, 2x tusko) at 13% afterburner

[fickle tundra]

very nicely done

[solid kettle]

cruise and top speed are the same, right?

Looks awesome tbh

[grave drift]

top speed is a bit more, supercruise should be easily possible at high altitude

i haven't tested the whole range yet

[rancid flicker]

Can confirm I didn’t want to commit heinous acts after flying it for more than 12 seconds

[solid kettle]

how does the slow speed handling change with the boosted thrust? Lack of vortex lift modeling means it probably won't be significantly more agile, but I'm wondering how being able to power out of its energy-bleeding-maneuvers would help it

also, a bit worried about the buffs to speeds, but Mitch did explicitly say it's not an F-35B... guess holding it to the same speed standards can also go out the window

it probably should still have a sub-Mach-2 top speed, however, design just doesn't seem capable of Mach 2 or above IMO

I wanna say one of the F-35 engine upgrade proposals pushed the top speed from Mach 1.6 to Mach 1.9- that's a pretty reasonable buff for the Vortex while keeping it in line with fighters of it's "class"

[grave drift]

it has significantly higher thrust vector factor for its FBW which means it tries to utilize as much of its 15-degree thrust vector capability at higher speeds while still keeping stable airflow over the wings

feels decent to use at medium speeds, let me get a video of low speed handling

holding stable 27.8 degree AoA at 362km/h

huh, IR is 8.3 at ab. weird

@fickle tundra any ideas on how to improve vortex aero performance? the game's AeroPart system is a little wonk and rather difficult to mod but i'm wondering what singular quantitative/qualitative adjustment would significantly improve it

[lime bramble]

im guessing more lift on leading edge wing parts

[fickle tundra]

im not familiar with NO's aeropart system so im not very sure about that, id think the easiest thing to do is find a way for the wings to produce more lift

true, trying to get the LE slats to generate more lift could be a solution

[solid kettle]

would increased lift on the strakes be the move? a bandaid fix to somewhat mimic vortex lift? Might require a shift in CoM

[grave drift]

so modifying HighLiftDevice component (leading edge slats) to have higher lift at low speeds then, i guess

[solid kettle]

having a higher heat when ABing isn't the end of the world- kinda makes sense considering the engine design- the big thing is having a lower heat when cruising, which encourages players to play to the jet's strengths a bit more

[fickle tundra]

the thing already needs the CoM and CoP to move anyways

[grave drift]

CoM probably needs to shift anyway, to get it to stop flopping around when landing

i wonder which direction CoL and CoM need to move though. latter probably forwards but i haven't played simpleplanes in years...

or CoP

i suppose CoP and CoM both forward, but CoP a little more

[fickle tundra]

CoM needs to move a bit forward, CoP needs to move to or in front of CoM, probably in because of how flight assist is currently modeled

take notes on whatever Revoker has, because its a step in the right direction

[solid kettle]

found the relevant link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Versatile_Engine_Technology

sadly this got cancelled but the basis for the tech to justify the Vortex's speed buffs is there, to an extent. And, ya know, "the Vortex isn't an F-35B"

[grave drift]

i wonder what weight the vortex should be

current empty weight is like what, 9t?

[summer wind]

Man your actual gameplay representations are so cool i really hope mitch sees these

[fickle tundra]

yeah, Vortex is slightly shorter than a JAS-39C but has a slighty larger wingspan, JAS-39C is 6800 empty but consider that stealth aircraft are heavier, F-15C is 13,154 empty while F-22A is 19,700

[grave drift]

you think it should be lighter than that? easiest way to shift CoM is just to remove weight from one side

also i just realized this but after looking through AeroPart a bit more, wings actually get less effective the more damaged they are. the more you know

[fickle tundra]

Ifrit is a 5th gen heavy fighter and its empty weight is 16,040. for reference the Su-57 is 18,500

we can probably assume that in the future stealth airframes dont suffer too much from extra weight, so you can probably reduce its weight to something similar to a Revoker

[grave drift]

i forget how much the revoker weighs

will check

ok, 9220 versus 8840

[fickle tundra]

8500ish could work

[solid kettle]

I'm assuming you're using empty weight in KG

F-35A: 13,154 kg
F-35B: 14,729 kg

so the STOVL system added roughly 1500 kg ish of weight, for reference, between the two variants

also

Vortex: 9060 kg
X-32: 10,900 kg

kinda weird the Vortex is lighter than the X-32, tbh

[fickle tundra]

simple reason, its a smaller aircraft

[solid kettle]

why is it so damn small lmao

[rancid flicker]

thats what she said

[fickle tundra]

it isnt smaller by much, but definitely smaller, around the size of a Gripen A/C

[solid kettle]

like, it's insane it's significantly smaller than either the X-32 or X-35

[fickle tundra]

both are JSF

[solid kettle]

I mean only one kept the title of JSF, tbh, but I edited it to be more accurate

[teal fox]

its the smallfighter1 after all

[grave drift]

i think i would be rather disappointed if the smallfighter was not small

dunno how good/bad this performance is

[fickle tundra]

looks pretty bad, but what about the instantaneous turn at higher speeds

[grave drift]

i figured out why, i set the pitch to the wrong axis

[grave drift]

what's bad specifically? the speed it holds, aoa, or just turn rate?

[fickle tundra]

the rate was pretty low yeah

[spiral badge]

it kinda looked like it was drifting

[grave drift]

is this higher at all?

[fickle tundra]

definitely

[grave drift]

sucks that there's no turn rate indicator, i can't tell

[rancid flicker]

How do you play the game with the UI not being against the edge of the screen

[grave drift]

i just didn't adjust anything, this is a rather small window to reduce recording size and i just eyeballed the ratio

[spiral sapphire]

pic i took just now

[rancid flicker]

I would rather play with every reshade filter enabled than have the UI look like that

[grave drift]

would it be alittle absurd to give the vortex like, 2 degrees of yaw thrust vectoring

it results in the entire nozzle plate thing moving thouhg

[spiral badge]

it might give it better stability while in VTOL

[spiral sapphire]

it looks ugly but i love having centered hud
before, i was struggling with knowing wtf countermeasure or weapon i had selected since it was all the way in the corner
you may not like it, but this is what peak peformance looks like

[rancid flicker]

Despicable

[solid kettle]

I mean the 35 can do it while hovering, but I don’t think the Vortex’s nozzle has the physical side-to-side clearance for yaw TVC to actually vector much

[grave drift]

how fast can the f-35 change modes? from nozzle down to up

[solid kettle]

seems pretty fast

[unique bloom]

https://youtu.be/vsKwBzt7rDY?t=318

[solid kettle]

I was just about to link that! 5:45ish is when the transition takes place, seems fairly similar to a Vortex that isn’t after burning

[unique bloom]

except the vortex is ridiculously slow when it transitions

[solid kettle]

Flip side is the Vortex (currently) relies on heavy AB usage to power through the transition

[unique bloom]

yeah, it makes it suboptimal for what it's made to do

[worn moss]

https://youtu.be/zW28Mb1YvwY?si=hxd4xwD9BNke0qQH&t=12 Not particularly helpful edits, but it seems like a second or two if they didn't stop for anything and went from 0 to 90.

[grave drift]

i've been doing a lot more looking-into for the actual mathematical calculations behind AeroPart and HighLiftDevice, very interesting how simulation jobs are allocated for efficiency

anyway, for a given aircraft part, lift is 0.5 * air density * velocity^2 * wing area * lift coefficient * wing effectiveness, where wing area and effectiveness are somewhat arbitrary (i believe area is just actually m^2, and effectiveness is almost always 1) and lift coefficient is determined by 1.8 * sin(5 * alpha) where alpha is aoa, so an aoa of 18 would be best

(this is only for the default aerofoil though, and different bits have different curves for lift and drag)

there's also an airflow channeling factor for how much of an incoming airflow is immediately, well, channeled, into the direction of the airfoil

looking at f-35 performances apparently it can hit 45-50 degrees while still generating lift which is pretty wild, though i don't know how accurate this is

i assume that the vortex should pretty quickly move its velocity vector back to boresight if i do a bank, 180, and then unbank (or whatever it's called) during that 180 phase at least

it would be probably better if i had some idea of how aero works...

[junior idol]

I know this thread has mainly focused on increasing the A2A capability of the vortex.
But
Could we get Internally carried PAB80LRs. Why have a stealth platform, that can only drop 'short-range' gps guided bombs. All of its proper "modern stuff, like glide bombs, ARMs and cruise missiles can only beounted externally, defeating the point of stealth.
Considering we can already carry pab125s, and quite lot of them, we should be able to carry PAB80LRs in both of our bays

[teal fox]

i'd like something internal that can deal with boltstrikes
(internal kingpins please)
just anything to let it leverage it's stealth in air to ground better

[junior idol]

I hope that we'll see some equivalent to the MBDA Spear - so basically a glidebomb similiar to the PAB80LR but eith propulsion, so a small cruisemissile

There are 2 real-life versions, one with conventional payload, other is an EW jammer and there is also work on a SEAD/Anti-radiation one

[solid kettle]

https://discord.com/channels/909034158205059082/1377320800599805995

[grave drift]

@solid kettle @fickle tundra how does this performance look?

tapped S instead of holding since full input can cause a stall at 40 alpha

ignore the impromptu landing, i don't know how to fly

using 6x scythe, 2x irm for all of these

it still bleeds speed pretty fast though. i dunno why

[solid kettle]

I wanna say that's a faster roll rate than the Ifrit

I remember testing all the aircraft and everything but the Compass has a pretty unrealistic subpar roll rate compared to similar IRL fighters

then Mitch blew it off on stream, so I haven't brought it up again, but the data didn't lie, roll rates were pretty meh across the board

however, it looks better than the Vortex on live, which is automatically an improvement

[summer wind]

at this point just ring mitch's doorbell and shove these ideas in his computer

[rancid flicker]

USB thumb drive and carrier pigeon

[summer wind]

Horse travel offiry rides until exhaustion and then walks the remainer of the distance
Avoiding the snakes of course

[dusky kiln]

A weird thing that might go a long way would be asymmetric loadouts for the inner bay.

If we had asymmetry we could take 3x ARH + 3x S2 or 2x S3 which is half of a fritter. All with no clipping

[solid kettle]

Doesn’t solve the issue of it not having the internal ARH capacity for proper stealth BVR, because it would still have less than 4 Scythes/Scimitars

[dusky kiln]

that is true, 4 ARH + 2 IR would be ideal

its just that the 6x S2 option feel overbearing- i dont need that many but its that or nothing

[solid kettle]

4 ARH + 2 IR would be a fine internal loadout, if 6 ARH can’t/won’t happen

[west wasp]

Or its anemic performance in flight.

The thing just can't handle anything past the lightest loads well.

And there's also the hover, which really needs more of a gradient.

[teal fox]

does it even get ground effect?

[west wasp]

Does anything?

[teal fox]

i thought chicane did

[west wasp]

9

[lime bramble]

ground effect happens more with low wingloading, large wings

[teal fox]

i thought vtol aircraft at least slightly benefitted from it

[lime bramble]

a jet engine has extremely high “wingloading”, as do smaller turboprop engines (tarantula props), so they benefit much less from ground effect

[summer wind]

bumping this cause lets see how much more messages can we get away with

[naive knoll]

EOTS and better mil power thrust and heat

[stiff pendant]

yeah honestly, it would also be good for cruise missile defense (They took away my lovely IRM S1 on Compass)

[livid moss]

sometimes I feel like what is needed for "Vortex" rebalancing is... another aircraft.
Remember: Annex cannot carry Compass either. So BDF navy is completely lacking in the "low rank, low budget fixed wing attacker" range, and when these planes are finally entirely factionalized, BDF land bases will also lose both Compass and Ifrit (two of which are now go-to OP multirole in the low- and high-rank range respectively).
What would BDF have then? Revoker (budget fighter with a RCS the size of the state of Montana. Basically no A2G capability) and Voltex (stealth limits it to only two internal stores, one of which has no A2G missile option).

So it's not about what Voltex needs. It's about what BDF needs. BDF needs a low-rank, high-subsonic, stealth attacker. It should have say three internal stores compatible with all but the absolute largest BDF A2G choice (perhaps 3x AGM-68 or 3x AGM-99 each), but with A2A weapons limited to IRAAMs and a lack of radar.

one more thing is Vortex for some reason has larger heat signature than Ifrit, both at MIL and full A/B

[summer wind]

Apparently looking back in the message history thats just a mitch oopsie

[livid moss]

so, Vortex can expect a heat signature reduction soon?

[summer wind]

Absolutely no idea,

Tbh i wonder if anyone of the developement team will react to this post soon enought

[stiff pendant]

I'd say a harrier-like non-stealthy attack jet that is functionally similar to compass, but probably worse agility

[livid moss]

I would still wish it's stealthy. It can be less nimble sure. It's an attack aircraft. Compass already isn't that good at stealth but it's very capable dogfighter. This new BDF low tier attacker can be less dogfight-y but more infiltrative than the Compass for a change as well as a way of asymmetric balancing

[stiff pendant]

the thing is, we already have a stealthy plane with low to mid attack capability on annex, and it costs a good deal of money

[teal fox]

low cost and vtol rarely go together unfortunately

[stiff pendant]

certainly lower than vortex with stealth and stuff

[teal fox]

it'd probably have to make do with simply a low stall speed
through large flaps/wingspan

[livid moss]

well that's the point we need to supplement the Vortex with a cheaper, more attack-centered plane. It can be non-supersonic and poorly A2A'd but please make it stealth with higher weapon load

[stiff pendant]

I know we hate variants of existing things but the most sensible thing to do is adding a compass with more wingspan, which is actually airland scorpion, which in fact is the main reference for compass

devs just pulled down the aspect ratio with a whole different wing design and more boxy fuselage that is supposed to be a bit more boxy

and, of course, su-25 nose

(Just look at the size of those fukin flaps)

[teal fox]

i personally would like a twin engine prop but then it wouldn't work as a fighter like compass does

[lime bramble]

the harrier costs about 30 mil

[teal fox]

huh

[midnight mist]

Yeah a modernized harrier would actually be really good

[midnight mist]

Only problem is that now the BDF has a 30 million, 65 million, and 90 million fighter
While pala has just a 20 million and a 120 million

If that is a problem, atleast

[unique bloom]

i mean, what about the cricket, isn't it theirs, also the price for the harrier bootleg can just be 22 million instead of 30 million for balance purpouses

[midnight mist]

I meant like-
The problem is that Pala might just have way too big of a capability gap unless more planes are added for them

[unique bloom]

personally, i think we are oversaturating the bdf with single engine planes at this point, along with that something like a light fighter or heavy non stealth fighter for pala would balance things out for both factions

[summer wind]

Tbh if the vortex doesnt get changed wich it might not, i supoose bdf would get a true air to air monster like the ifrit, with similar capacities

[tiny crag]

im hoping for a rank 4 with F-15EX vibes. 0% stealth, 100% ballin

[summer wind]

Litterally the revoker

[tiny crag]

good point, though i was imagining a twin engine with a payload similar or even greater than the ifrit. but thats a different topic

[unique bloom]

the problem is that it's single engine. and that makes it susceptible to instant death, the bdf needs an aircraft that isn't a glass cannon for once

[summer wind]

True but even on 2 engines fighter your most likely dead if you lost an engin
2 engine bdf fighter is a + though

Im hoping it replaces the "cas jet" idea mitch had but thats not the point of the suggestion :D

So...eeeerm

Folded scythe fins when

[unique bloom]

i mean the compass is sturdy enough to take hits, and none of the aircraft on the bdf can't even compare to it's survivability, even if you buff the vortex, there still is a hole left on the BDF's capabilities when it comes to that

[summer wind]

would like to talk

But compass beign sturdy makes sens its a trainer jet its made to be able to whitstand time tbh, im assuming whoevers in charge of the FS-___ series seems to build jets as perfect products without a budget celling

[midnight mist]

What if we put two revoker engines on the same airframe

And call it the Revokerer

[summer wind]

Saturn 5 aaaah

[unique bloom]

i was thinking of sturdy fighter aircraft, i know that the tarantula is a flying fortress so i don't think about it

[summer wind]

Well idk man its flying amd its an aircraft :D, but yea a new fighter would be nice but pala would then lack a 3rd jet

Why not create a new liscencing thats an opportunistic seller to both teams

[midnight mist]

Two slightly different variants of the same aircraft

[summer wind]

Mitch is against that cause it takes as much time to make a variant than a new craft

[midnight mist]

Oh, huh
Can I ask why that is?

[tiny crag]

@solid kettle since one of the bigger L's on the Vortex is the lack of actual vortex lift, i'd like to see if its possible for me to make a "proof of concept" mod that adds it, but idk anything about vortex lift, or most aero theory lol.
I assume you know a little more about aero, would you be willing to eli5 how it should behave, or some share good resources if you know of any.

[summer wind]

I dont really know since im not a gamedev but i would assume changes to the model itself and the coding required to make said differences would slow down developpement on current wip stuffs

[tiny crag]

or @fickle tundra the vortex lift prophet

[summer wind]

Wouldnt offiry's QOL mod be a start for a proof of concept if you and cactus can talk about the vort vort lift to him ?

[tiny crag]

i partially wrote the framework for the qol mod, which offiry has heavily expanded on

[sleek cradle]

What actually is vortex lift tho

[tiny crag]

from what i understand, it gives extra lift at high AoA, instead of stalling like a normal wing. i know very little about it which is why i asked the experts

[opaque lance]

The humble Harrier: (comparable cost to the Compass)

[fickle tundra]

basically forcing the air into forming vortices, it essentially 'energizes' the air and allows the lifting surface to produce stronger lift, you'll often see vortex generators on the wings as tiny bumps around the leading edge but for fighter aircraft its generally a LERX, a LERX generates vortex lift by creating a pocket of low pressure air when the aircraft pulls aoa and it forces air to move in and begin generating vortices, essentially every modern fighter exploits this phenomenon and thats one of the reasons why they're dramatically more maneuverable than previous designs

[unique bloom]

i had a similar idea but make the plane that's both factions the compass, but make specialized aircraft for each of them, like the harrier as mentioned and something else for pala

[fickle tundra]

example image, notice the vortices becoming visible as it condenses

[opaque lance]

Also I imagine that PALA will be getting some kinda F-15N/SU-33 abomination combo

Seems like something one could expect from Mitch

[fickle tundra]

though should it be hyperion compatible

[unique bloom]

it doesn't look half bad (give it cannarrds)

[opaque lance]

I mean it would be, if it combined those two. They are both naval planes, one of which designed specifically to take off on a ramp.

But it seems like something Mitch might make for PALA, a failed US design combined with an existing Soviet design. IMO the bigger concern is that it would probably cost quite a lot for the tier.

Actually apparently cost is not an issue? The SU-33 is only about 55mil and the F-15N was theorized to be a little over the F-15As cost of 28mil, and definitely cheaper than the cost of the F-14A, which was 38mil

[lime bramble]

Revoker is more legacy F-18 than super F-15EX

in terms of capability

[grave drift]

i was experimenting with that the other day but decided to hold off for a bit because using HighLiftDevices as pseudo vortex lift was not very optimal or had no noticable change

[unique bloom]

i've allways seen the revoker as a grippen, or a light fighter

[grave drift]

changing channeling factor or lift of aeroparts normally was just useless or made the plane stall faster than normal (??)

[lime bramble]

similar enough, legacy F-18 doesnt carry much

[unique bloom]

oh look, cannards, anyway i would like to pilot something like this, the cannards should be a bit bigger though and giving it some comformal tanks would help it look rounder and better

[summer wind]

As in ? 10 amraam is quite big considering most us aircrafts seem to not be able to hold more, and the revoker goes up to 16 if i remember correctly ?

[opaque lance]

F/A-18Cs can carry more than an F-16 but that's like saying a house fly is bigger than a fruitfly.

It is true but both are super small anyways

[lime bramble]

more in terms of weight capacity, AAM capacity is quite high in NO

[unique bloom]

it does look a lot like a tomcat now that i notice, but i wonder how do you make an F 15 look not so similar to an F15 to avoid copyright

[opaque lance]

I thought the revoker was only capable of carrying 12 Scythes?

2 internally, 4 on internal pylons, 4 on external pylons, 2 on wingtips

[fickle tundra]

theyre attached to the vari intakes

[tiny crag]

i was thinking of doing it more raw as a test, directly apply force to a point

[summer wind]

Not scythe only
X1 s3 x3 scythe x4 s2 in order outer wings to inner bays

[unique bloom]

i know what the STOL MTD does, and yes the canards are quite tiny and in the wrong place

[fickle tundra]

that model lacks dihedal too, limits the coupling potential of the canards along with roll stability benefits

[unique bloom]

i enjoy these pictures more than i should, i show those mockups beacuse it's a good way to show concepts without having to explain them in a hundred lines

[sleek cradle]

I bet it could fly with no wings

Just purely off canard, elevator, and engine power

[solid kettle]

Just to comment on an earlier part of the conversation-

I agree that BDF needs both a low cost subsonic jet to compete with the Compass, and a high cost complex supersonic fighter to directly compete with the Ifrit (which would most likely be stealthy). However, regardless of the details of both of those aircraft, the Vortex still needs to be balanced to be worth its price and role.

The current spread of jets serves as a good litmus test for the efficacy of the Vortex.

Is the Vortex worth 1.5 Revokers?

Is the Vortex truly 3/4 of an Ifrit?

Does the Vortex offer 4.5 Compass’s worth of utility?

I’d fairly confidently say no to the above. If you asked me if the Ifrit was worth two Revokers, in comparison, I could point out the major kinematic advantages at high altitude combined with stealth payload flexibility and external payload potential, but if asked the same about the Vortex, I’d struggle to make the same argument.

Regardless of the other unfilled holes in the BDF roster, the Vortex is fairly anemic for 90 mil and needs some tweaks to be worth the price.

[teal fox]

that comparison is slightly flawed, as you can't exactly fly 4 compasses at the same time
so a 50% increase in power is well worth a 2x increase in price for example

[midnight mist]

You know
If the BDF needs something cheaper than a revoker (to match the compass)
But more expensive/capable than the vortex (to match the ifrit)

To be able to match the planes that Pala already has-
I feel like there is some kind of
Fundemental problem here

[opaque lance]

The problem is that the Vortex was designed to match the Ifrit

[nocturne pulsar]

I'd argue that the Vortex threw a bit of a wrench into the long-term plan of splitting the factions - or at least, didn't bring the game any closer to that goal. It left BDF with two rank 3 fighters, and basically nothing else.

[midnight mist]

like
I would understand if the Revoker was meant to work for both factions.
Mid line fighter that can do some amount of multi-rolling

Pala would have Compass-Revoker-Ifrit
BDF would have {Harrier3}-Revoker-Vortex
maybe with the vortex getting some general buffs to flight performance, as well as some specific gimmicks like the "Advanced-AGM-48s" or high end optical sensors, and also a corresponding increase in rank/cost

[solid kettle]

The point I was making is that for A2A, you're better off taking a Revoker 99% of the time for 2/3rds of the price, and for non nuclear strike, you'll get more consistent results with 4 sorties of sea skimming compasses spamming AGM-48s and 68s.

If we apply the same comparison to the Ifrit, the Ifrit has better kinematics and larger total payload than the Revoker when fully loaded, and I'd argue that instead of using 5 compass sorties it's more efficient to use 1-2 Ifrit sorties, as the Ifrit carries a flexible and capable internal and external strike payload.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's workable enough to highlight why players don't spawn Vortexes for conventional strike at the same rate they spawn Compasses or Ifrits. You really only see Vortexes for SEAD against stratolances, AGM-99 spam, or nuke strikes, which is disappointing for an aircraft that's supposed to offer BDF the naval strike/attack capabilities of both the Compass and the Ifrit.

[unique bloom]

if that was the case why not just make a counterpart for the revoker for pala

[solid kettle]

even then the Vortex shouldn't be stacked up directly against the Ifrit- a single engine STOVL fighter vs a twin engine heavy fighter? Not the most fair matchup, conceptually. BDF still needs a twin engine heavy fighter IMO

Its fine if the asymmetry is purely for carrier aviation- that's interesting but not game breaking. It's not fine if that asymmetry applies across the board.

[unique bloom]

even if the vortex was able to compensate these with bigger unit numbers via a cheaper price, it still would be underpowered against it

[midnight mist]

Does the Vortex have a better radar or anything like that?

[opaque lance]

No, worse radar than Ifrit

[solid kettle]

No. I don't think it should get a better radar either, tbh, the EOTS suggestion seems like a fairer way to give it a sensor edge while not pushing it out of it's realistic capabilities

[midnight mist]

I guess that in a pure "stealth loadout" battle then optical detection will be achieved before radar

[naive knoll]

I was flying CAP in the Vort for a while on a huge dedicated server yesterday, and being stuck either ruining stealth or not spotting anything until they’re basically in gun range is a pretty big issue.

[solid kettle]

The Ifrit has more physical room for a larger radar, I don't think it makes a ton of sense for the Vortex to have a superior radar range, and there's no indication which aircraft is more modern (in fact, the development of the Ifrit seems completely segregated from the development of the Vortex, unlike the F-22/F-35)

but, in general, the more room you have for a radar set, the more powerful you can make it, including AESA radar

[midnight mist]

why not just
make the vortex more modern as the developer (assuming that this is a suggestion that mitch might act upon)

[spiral sapphire]

why is the intake ontop of the wing in the 2nd pic 😭

[fickle tundra]

to reduce chances of FOD intake dramatically

[spiral sapphire]

unless it's gonna takeoff from dirt, i don't see it as an alternative for the revoker

won't be able to get enough intake durring high aoa so it can't have a competitive turn radius
dunno how rate would be

[fickle tundra]

you dont have to design it for insanely high aoa, and even then you can keep the engine fed with workarounds that the engine needs anyways

[solid kettle]

even so it doesn't fix the whole "not nearly the same room for radar as Revoker/Ifrit" thing

and conceptually, there's no real reason it should have better radar than a twin engine heavy fighter like the Ifrit tbqh

[midnight mist]

Right, yeah I guess that sense
maybe instead it could have something like those wing mounted radars on the SU-57?

[solid kettle]

again, lack of room, and also, not really something an aircraft of that size and function would spend it's limited weight on

[fickle tundra]

those arent active radars, and assume every fighter in the game already has them

[solid kettle]

thought they were- or at least the Russians claimed they were

pretty sure the F-35 and F-22 don't have em, no reason to assume the Ifrit or Vortex do or don't have them at this point

[midnight mist]

Damn

[solid kettle]

I mean it is a STOVL jet, and a small one at that. Weight is very much at a premium.

[fickle tundra]

my bad, i was thinking of other aircraft with this tech, the one on the Su-57 are L Band AESAs for long range detection

[midnight mist]

Okay yeah the best way to buff the vortex would probably be to increase its general handling characteristics and give it some sort of gimmick

[solid kettle]

I mean I did make a list of ways to buff it without pushing it past it's intended role. Offiry's QoL mod implements some of these and it makes a world of difference.

[midnight mist]

Oh, I must have missed that
. .
oh its right at the top

wait no I didn't I just forgot I read it

[graceful hearth]

he makes me float above the AFB when im bored

[unique bloom]

isn't it's gimmick vtol landings while being stealth?

[midnight mist]

I mean like
in combat
something actually usefull

IRL being able to do that would be an amazing capability (that's why the F-35B is still getting sales)

But like, in a game where a player can just instead choose to spawn in a heavy fighter from a nearby airfield that is stronger, faster, better than the Vortex, for not that much higher of a price-

It just ain't make much sense to use this

[nocturne pulsar]

The VTOL system is useful in a dogfight, but "able to win a dogfight if the pilot is really good" isn't exactly earth-shattering capability in this game - it definitely needs more help

[solid kettle]

it doesnt need an additional gimmick it just needs to fly like a fighter and have the appropriate firepower for it's roles

to elaborate: read the post

[midnight mist]

Like the gimmick I mean is something like the EOTS that you suggested
or airframe specific missiles

[solid kettle]

definitely not airframe specific missiles

[midnight mist]

so the JAGM idea turned to be bad after some discussion or-
did I misunderstand

[solid kettle]

sorry I thought you meant A2A missiles, my bad

JAGM seems fairly popular still

[unique bloom]

i think that was proposed if the sychtes weren't able to fold their fins

[midnight mist]

Faction specific munitions do actually seem like a pretty good way to introduce asymmetry if the airframes aren't enough-

especially once, as you propose, the factions will each get airframes comparable to eachother

[unique bloom]

kinda like in real life where types of missiles are made by different manufacturers

[teal fox]

what about internal pins?
just anything light to blow up radars/boltstrikes while having the rcs of a clean configuration

[solid kettle]

lynchpins are probably the least relevant weapon for a supersonic fighter to be using, you could give it quad lynchpin racks and it would still suck

[opaque lance]

Internal kingpins I think they meant

[fickle tundra]

AGM-58, tandem warhead, slightly faster speeds and longer range

[radiant garden]

Why tandem?

[fickle tundra]

To bypass explosive reactive components of a vehicle's armor array

[radiant garden]

Thats not something any vehicles in game have, and most the warheads in game are massive compared to the ATGMs and Shells that are normally tandem charges, to the point I think most modern or even near future ERA systems won't have any realistic effect on such large charges. Like they are at a point where pure explosive energy is just as much of a problem as the jet that ERA are designed to resist. The only munitions that would kinda make sense to make a tandem charge are the rockets and 48s which already has an alternative that can bypass ERA, the chicane exclusive ATP.

[teal fox]

then four or more kingpins
radar trucks are pretty fragile anyway

[radiant garden]

It could probably fit at least 2 kinpin pods internally, so 8 rockets wouldn't be too bad.

[woeful goblet]

agm-49

[stiff pendant]

the problem is you cant use kingpins internally, unless you change their way of jettisionoing and make a new stacking assembly

I honestly don't get the JAGM talk by the way, AGM-48 is quite literally Brimstone which is a counterpart to JAGM

If I was to add a special AGM for Vortex, I would go for something like SPEAR 3, and I even recall suggesting a lightweight cruise missile

[solid kettle]

the point of the JAGM was to add the AGM-48 to the Vortex, essentially, with slightly better performance to justify it being locked to fixed wing platforms for BDF. Somewhat similar to how ATP-1s were created specifically to add a top attack missile, instead of giving it to the AGM-48 (which should honestly have it)

[stiff pendant]

if you want similar size class i say something like spear-3

yeah it is like 100 kg but close in size, and goes like a cruise missile

you know what, I'm gonna make one

[fickle tundra]

Brimstone with wings and an engine

[solid kettle]

I mean I'd be down for that. The idea is to increase it's standoff firepower to be more competitive with the Compass and offer something vs the Ifrit (which excels at carpet bombing).

[rotund marten]

having the vortex be better at massed AGMs while the ifrit's more of a bomber for air-to-ground would be good i think, it'd at least be a nice point of difference. currently the compass is actually better for convoy-busting than the vort in my experience, which is not really how things should be imo

[summer wind]

Speaking from my last games i always manage to use only 3-4 aircrafts

Compass for the obvious cash farm

And then the weird part, i either use a beast mode revoker to kill anything air 2 air capable or a vortex on beast 99s with internal scythe or scimitar until i get enought cash to use the vortex for pure air to air wich i find somehow very capable ???? Idk im probably used to it

But i agree that 6 in the bay would be a need for it, including the reduced ir signature that mitch forgor about

[summer wind]

Would making the lift fan an optional thing to effectively change the vortex to a CTOL jet help its capacity in any ways ?

[midnight mist]

thats not something that you can just . . retrofit a plane with
like you pretty much need to massively change the entire airframe to make that change/make a different aircraft

[summer wind]

True

But

Theoretically

[floral mortar]

Make it an “A”PU and give it a giga jammer

[dense cypress]

ngl i near exclusively end up using cricket, revoker, and DR

[dense cypress]

removing the one good part of the vortex :(

[fickle tundra]

Because the bar is really low

[solid kettle]

The jet should also be competitive at its price point without removing the lift fan, tbh

[summer wind]

Point given

Fold scythe fins

[dense cypress]

nah in a world without carrier catapults STOL is the next best thing, ALL CRAFT SHOULD BE STOL/CARRIER OPTIMIZED 🗣️

[fickle tundra]

you can land anything with enough head wind

[dense cypress]

if the U2 can do it…

[fickle tundra]

okay the U-2 has an AR of 9 morbillion that shit can land on anything because it reaches max lift at 2 knots

[dense cypress]

C130 also landed on the forestall iirc without a hook, and if i remember right with a 6,000lb payload

[fickle tundra]

yea, with enough headwind and a big boat

[dense cypress]

that’s still ~800’ of runway innit? still pretty impressive without a hook regardless

[solid kettle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

[dense cypress]

yup, one of my favorite videos

[opaque lance]

That's insane

[fickle tundra]

Full brakes, C-130 can get pretty slow with the props blowing over the wings and carrier hauling ass on headwind, quite mesmerizing to see

[dawn coyote]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1240673511740149762/1402195056680767549/Not_Suggestions_HEVC.mp4?ex=6893b029&is=68925ea9&hm=51271e1e140b6fa9230a5661a1810b037f0acddd885e09019dbae302cb991eb4&

[astral grotto]

The vehicles we have in game most definitely have NERA

[fickle tundra]

Who's to say there's an explosive layer snuck in

[stiff pendant]

bruh, adding RATO is easier than this

[potent kindle]

RATO is based

[west wasp]

Just give the poor thing a better engine.

Would at least give it one thing that it can really do well; going fast in a straight line.

[spiral badge]

or just boost the efficiency of it

[west wasp]

The power of that engine is lowert than a single Ifrit engine?

Fuel economy aside, the plane just can't carry a load well.

A more powerful engine would make using VTOL more comfortable, allow easier and less AB dependent landings, and give it one domain that it excels at (straight line speed and and acceleration).

[shadow rain]

vortex so mid it desperately needs like a 180kN engine

[midnight mist]

Yeah isnt the engine on the F-35 like really strong

[teal fox]

the engine is bearable, it's the energy retention that's terrible
two sharp turns and you might as well be standing still

[nocturne pulsar]

It's powerful for a single engine, but the plane is also pretty heavy, so its TWR ends up being unimpressive

[opaque lance]

The engine on the Vortex is objectively underpowered, weaker than the Ifrit and iirc Revoker

[rotund marten]

honestly just give it the revoker engine. they're from the same faction and even line of aircraft, and seem to be designed to complement each other, it'd make a decent degree of sense

[unique bloom]

they even have the same sound (even if it's game limitations), so it's pretty much seamless

[fickle tundra]

someone should check the engine inlet diameters between all the fighters

[livid moss]

from a "how much air can the engine get" perspective or RCS perspective?

[dusky kiln]

more the former, some of noptions s-bends are on the skinnier side of realistic

[agile valley]

I mean I’m all for realistic design but the vortex is in the game already. It’d be weird to change its model for balancing reasons. Just change its stats

[dense cypress]

tbh yeah, like unless its an external flaw that visually doesnt make sense if its already implemented and “under the hood” i think it should be left as is

hell just look at the crickets inlet, you can see the engines compressor from ~50-60 degrees up

[fickle tundra]

size of engine generally tells how much power they can output relative to others

[noble pivot]

The vortex gets F-zero music it should be the fastest aircraft

[spiral sapphire]

revoker and ifrit have cooler themes therefore they go faster

[summer wind]

Depends on what aspect

Revoker theme sounds like a story

Ifrit is getting remade so we can't tell

Vortex one sounds like a kid on redbull who just won the 100m race and im all here for it

[dense cypress]

NOOO WHY IS THE IFRIT THEME BEING REMADE

[dusky kiln]

not remade
more extended and improved

[teal fox]

when are they going to make the sax solo longer 😭

[summer wind]

Yea mb more of a "remix" it still will remain the same

[summer wind]

I mean im all for it lol I love the rev's theme

But all theme in NO last about 2.3 minutes beside the menu and nuclear escalation ones

What i want though Is for the "factory" theme to actually play somehow

[lime bramble]

it was showcased during NOCS as waiting music, it sounds a lot more evil

[dense cypress]

didn’t watch nocs, guess i’ll see

[solid kettle]

It'll be interesting to see what the FBW/lift changes and heat sig fix does for the Vortex. It'll make it much better as a fighter, but it won't fix some of the loadout issues, so maybe a 75% fix?

[fickle tundra]

Aggressive vortex gameplay

[summer wind]

Is there any ways to listen to it now the vods gone

[lime bramble]

i wouldnt know

[worn moss]

Might be worthwhile for Shockfront to capture the streams and reupload them to YouTube or somewhere else more permanent.

Another discussion for another thread I suppose.

[wild yew]

thats very much planned, sadly the first vod didnt capture audio
i think it would be better if they multistreamed it to youtube aswell as livestreams seem to stay on there and wont have to be uploaded as regular videos which may be bad algorithmic

[dusky kiln]

I will say a good chunk of dev stream is not worth the rewatch, and these are very very long videos.

Better if we got a little recap in #development-blog that included all the exiting new stuff

[worn moss]

It's the constant Mitch quotes that I would want to preserve. Timestamps to a recording would be better than "Mitch said he was/wasn't doing XYZ in [deleted twitch video]"

[solid kettle]

If only Mitch could put a conglomeration of relevant quotes into some sort of organized list

maybe like a plan, call it a “map of the road to 1.0”

or just a road map, IDK, call me crazy but maybe that’s a good idea, who knows

[solid kettle]

Balancing The Vortex

[quasi ruin]

Or ideally a long video on YT where he goes over the roadmap, every system and aircraft in the game, existing or planned, explaining his vision of them in depth and stating what he’s willing and unwilling to do with them

[timid roost]

I'd welcome some more future gazing, but locking down into a detailed roadmap is a bad idea for expectations and making changes.

But some high level: "aero changes" under "soon", and maybe "EW changes" - backlog etc, would be good

[solid kettle]

The fact I was about to search for Mitch quotes yet again to show how Mitch actually details what we’re getting half a year to a year in advance is an ironic example of the problem- that info should be in #development-blog and in the roadmap, not something we have to constantly share screenshots and links in the bowels of forums and threads

The current roadmap is hilariously vague, meanwhile Mitch is constantly offhandedly dropping comments about the next 2-3 major aircraft/updates in random streams and discord comments

Shoot, if you didn’t tune into the last dev stream at exactly the right time you’d have no idea about the multiple maps Mitch has been tinkering with, or the fact that he’s not gonna add them until next year(!) at the earliest as of now

[timid roost]

You know what, you are right. I think I'd become accustomed a bit too much to the community aspect and hear-say, which is sort of fun in its own right, but sometimes would be nice to have a bit more detail written down

[radiant garden]

Ok so who wants to be the Developer quotes tracker guy/community roadmap guy

[spiral sapphire]

this all describes it really well

[astral grotto]

Mitch is making multiple maps?

[unique bloom]

i saw only the one in the latest stream tbh, so i'm not sure if there are multiple

[worn moss]

https://discord.com/channels/909034158205059082/1412609292892246077

I had a clip of Mitch to use in this thread instead of relying on hearsay of Mitch's intentions.

An archive of streams would allow this approach more often via timestamps to videos.

Maintaining such an archive should be up to Shockfront instead of random users going through the streams to cut out useful information before it is deleted.

[dense cypress]

that should be up to the devs, its not the players problem to make sure dev announcements get heard, thats the dev’s job

[worn moss]

Agreed. Posting streams to their YouTube channel would be a good fit for the community manager.

[wild yew]

i think multi streaming would be nice
the youtube archiving is a bit nicer

[radiant garden]

I mean in the ideal situation the problem is things arnt ideal

[dense cypress]

i mean sure but they already post teasers and hold stream events semi regularly, i don’t think an occasional devlog on a sitrep is asking too much?

[wild yew]

we will get a new roadmap next update and lets see where it goes from there
maybe its comprehensive enough

[radiant garden]

Hopefully it would be nice

[teal fox]

the drg community did that brilliantly
https://deeprockgalactic.wiki.gg/wiki/Development_Q%26A
you've got categories, quotes and source (stream date/timestamp)

[abstract siren]

I know most of the focus for fixing the Vortex is focused towards air to air. And that is more of an issue. But between the upcoming FBW update and the proposals to add a folding fin scythe or otherwise fit more ARHs, I believe that there are not any other solutions worth mentioning.

However, for A2G, I think the Vortex could have a few buffs without outdoing the Ifrit. Would adding a 3x AGM-68 option for the inner wings and/or an inner bay option of 2x pab80s be viable? Given that the Vortex can fit pab250s and the pablo is the SDB II/stormbreaker, which fits in the f22 and f35 bays; it doesn't seem like there is any reason they can't fit.

So is there a balance reason the pab 80 shouldn't be carried in inner bay? The main arguments I see are that the PAB-80s would make the PAB-250 option obsolete and that internal only pablos combined with high speed aircraft would allow for extreme standoff strikes with too little warning. For the first one, I think the PAB-125s are already a better choice unless you are dealing with buildings. In which case, you are probably better off with 2x internal GPO-500s. So the PAB 250s are an acceptable, but not a strong, option either way.

For the second case, you would have to test, but I don't think 4 pab 80s is enough damage to be that devastating. Especially as if you are abusing extreme speeds to send PAB80s very long distances, stealth become less relevant and you could take up to double that amount of PAB80s on the wing pylons instead.

(part 2 will address potential objections to the triple AGM 68s)

Then with regard to the triple AGM 68s, the main argument would be that it might displace the other A2G options for that slot. But I think the PAB80s would be an equally or even more useful choice for that slot in some situations. And outside of the PAB-80s, most of the A2G options are somewhat situational currently. For example, 2x ARADs, 2x Augers, or 2-4x GPO-500s are viable choices for that slot, but only in situational circumstances. Those circumstances being that you are doing DEAD or heavy anti-structure work.

The PAB 250s are cheaper, but you are putting your 80 million dollar Vortex at more risk to save the $370,000 price difference between the triple 250s and the pablos. I would not say to never take the PAB 250s, but it already seems like the pablos or agm 68 are a better choice. I don't think adding a couple agm 68s more will change anything.

Adding 2 more AGM-68s would maybe reduce the utility of the kingpins on that slot. But you still get two more kingpins than AGMs. Furthermore, you can take a pod of kingpins on the outer wing slots where everything else is single slot. So I think kingpins are viable regardless of whether the change happens; as they are best used for outer pylons while saving the inner pylons for something heavier.

The only real threat to anything from the change is to the AGM 99s ( or 98s if you reject the name change). And that is because I think the AGM-68s are a better, cheaper, choice than the AGM-99s while being equally capable of sniping a Shard corvette. In my experience, it seems like 6 of either is about equally effective at killing a shard. Going from a max load of 6x 99s vs 6x 68s to a max load of 6x 99s vs 8x 68s will probably exacerbate the issue, but it won't fundamentally change it.

[teal fox]

it needs something internal that can deal with sams
68 is slow and pab250 needs to be in spitting distance
definitely pablos in outer bays at the very least

arads are slightly too big to be squeezed in the inner bays unfortunately

[solid kettle]

https://discord.com/channels/909034158205059082/1377320800599805995

[livid moss]

what? no. My point of Vortex buff has always nearly exclusively about air to ground and more specifically air to ship.
Vortex has notable inability to penetrate air defense.

[spiral badge]

I'm sorry but that is wildly inaccurate statement

when in a stealth configured Vortex you get as close as 16.5km of a Stratolance emplacement or Dynamo and that's not even utilizing ground clutter

plus once the R9 coverage is down you can basically ignore Boltstrikes and get up to 6-7km of Shard's

[livid moss]

I am releasing at <6km wth are you talking about...
even at 6km your choice of weapons that would actually gets through remains very limited

for naval fleets even at 6km you'd have like ~10% of kingpins getting through, barely enough to kill a Dynamo

I haven't even tried how many runs you would need to do meaningful damage against a Hyperion but in any case it's just not practical

[spiral badge]

see if I go for naval units I use a full AGM68 and sea skim up to them (2 for Shard's and 6 for Dynamo's) but I honestly used the Vortex for strike mission's during NOCS on several occasions especially using GPO-N's against a very competitive team

[spiral badge]

@pale radish sank the Annex with 2 GPO-500's during NOCS lol

[livid moss]

my experience is full AGM 68 doesn't penetrate anything beyond 2 shards
the only loadout other than kingpin that penetrates fleet-level naval air defense is 4x quasi-ALBM forgot the name
but it's highly unreliable, as you usually penetrate either 1 or 0 from the 4.

[pale radish]

[livid moss]

well it's annex not hyperion. annex AA is very notably weaker than hyperion.

[spiral badge]

to be fair you need to chip away at the fleet instead of thinking you can straight up knock it all out

[livid moss]

just look at Carrier Duel. The ~30 AShM waves from Dynamos does not penetrate the PALA fleet but does penetrate BDF fleet, and it can sink the Annex in the first wave if player don't intervene

[livid moss]

thing is Vortex often can't even chip away, that's the whole point. Also if you tried Terminal Control's lone Hyperion you'd realize Vortex can't kill even a lone Hyperion.

[spiral badge]

full GPO-500 loadout while sea skimming and pop up when dropping it has been done several times

[livid moss]

it gets through, not kill. I have also successfully killed lone hyperion from high altitude supersonic suicidal dives before the update, but it remains highly unreliable
ah to clarify, that's with 2x GPO500 2x 1.5kt

[solid kettle]

unironically a skill issue tbqh

sea skim bombing is stupidly effective in any supersonic aircraft, if anything ships need better SARH guidance against inbound targets on the deck to reduce its effectiveness

[dense cypress]

that’s not at all true, the buff is about its lack luster A-A capabilities

[solid kettle]

oh hey he’s trying to restart that thread again https://discord.com/channels/909034158205059082/1400424937390473298

lol, lmao even

[livid moss]

THAT's not at all true how about you scroll up and look at OP?
of the original 8-point suggestions only number 3 was exclusively about A2A
numbers 4, 5 and 7 are more about payload which is inclined toward A2G because A2G weapons are heavier and more needy with the "multipurpose centerline hardpoint"
number 6 is even exclusively A2G.

[livid moss]

Joke's on you, Vortex doesn't really go supersonic in A2G loadout at sea-skimming altitude (barely crosses 1.00 mach)

I have also tried sea skimming bombing and no it doesn't work. even 12x PAB125s at shortest possible range gets full intercepted by a single Hyperion. Not to mention the occasional leakers won't do meaningful damage.

[dense cypress]

i’m talking about the larger conversation going on for well over six hundred messages, frankly the vortex needs a number of buffs but it’s A2G is one is the least needed as it’s role largely comes from it being the single best penetration bomber clean

[fickle tundra]

you dont need speed, you just need enough bombs (4)

also dont use 125s, use 500s

[livid moss]

and I don't give a damn on that. The suggestion is the OP. If the subsequent discussion goes off-topic that's on them.

@fickle tundra if 12 bombs at mach 0.99, <6km drop gets all intercepted why should I bother to try 4 at 0.6 mach?

[dense cypress]

personally i pay attention more to the broad convo as they’re generally more thought out and peer reviewed, the suggestion is the feedback

[livid moss]

suggestion is suggestion and feedback is feedback. Look at the channel that literally says #feedback-and-suggestions . They are not the same.

[solid kettle]

bruh go read your own thread there’s multiple videos of how to kill a Hyperion or Dynamo with 500s made by Raikan

125s simply do not damage ships enough to sink them, whereas 500s and Augers have enough boom to sink capital ships in a single pass

Edit: here, now you have no excuse:

#screenshots-and-videos message

#screenshots-and-videos message

#1400424937390473298 message

[dense cypress]

also 500’s are better resilient to CIWS fire

[livid moss]

I'm not sure about each munition's HP. are 4x 500s having more HP than 12x 125s?

[dense cypress]

also if we limited the suggestions to just the op wed have a lot dumber suggestions here, this isnt one of them but suggestions here are BY DESIGN to be talked about and people give their opinions, all im doing is giving mine

[livid moss]

then don't say the suggestion (the post, the topic here) is about A2A. Speak for yourself. YOUR opinion is about A2A, not this thread's, not the OP's.

[dense cypress]

considering me and multiple other players regularly do fine with 4x 500’s id be inclined to believe such

anyway the thread as a whole would agree with me, A2A is the main issue 🤷🏻‍♀️

[solid kettle]

anyways, yes, there are proposed buffs to the Vortex’s A2G capability in this post, because right now the Vortex struggles to compete with the Compass and Ifrit for efficient A2G- you’re almost always better off spamming AGM-48s from a Compass for the price point, or investing in an Ifrit for faster, larger bomb loads

However the core of the issue is the Vortex’s performance, which hopefully the FBW and lift rework will begin to fix with 0.31

[livid moss]

and do your suggestion of "sea skimming" include having the bomb bounce off water surfaces? I think that doesn't always work for everyone and every rig.

I don't care if the thread would agree with you. This community is filled with trolls and idiots so much so that I will actually take popular vote as a minus.

[solid kettle]

“locally authentic sources”

pot calling the kettle black lmao

[dense cypress]

no i dont bounce it off the sea, i dont sea skim because thats dumb and un fun, i loft my bombs like a man despite being a woman

[livid moss]

so like what I'm doing: toss upwards from sea skimming altitude. Just making sure I wasn't doing it wrong

[fickle tundra]

hard

[solid kettle]

no, you’re definitely doing it wrong lmao

[dense cypress]

bingo bongo, low alt and low angle loft right here, perfect

i personally do it a tad farther out but this one is likely more effective

[unique bloom]

the vortex acts more like a strike fighter, as if it's both made for A2A and A2G, personally I've seen it perform in NOCS better as a stealth nuke truck, in some way it's like a tiny darkreach

[fickle tundra]

0.78 mach, 2.5 miles (4.6 km)

[livid moss]

def not my experience. what is stopping them from bashing out 4 bombs in the first second? that's what happened with my 12 bombs. Your example also didn't show the enemy reacting against the bombs in the first second at all.
and it's also not the first time I have seen my rig performing different from others. Yes, that did happen on the boltstrike vs. ARAD test.

edit: oh wait you're carrying 8

[fickle tundra]

i dont drop bombs as soon as CIWS or missiles hit, i actually wait for a gap and distance myself away.

[livid moss]

I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say but I drop bombs no different from your ways.

[solid kettle]

If it’s not working for you, clearly you’re doing something different… as was pointed out multiple times by multiple people in your thread…

[livid moss]

oh and let's not forget my rig has NEVER had munition stealth. Maybe that's the reason?
(as in, back when people say PABLO has so much stealth that boltstrikes often fail to intercept, I had never seen such in the same version. The PABLOs in my rig, whether dropped by me or AI, always gets intercepted at catalogue boltstrike range)

[unique bloom]

can you even try recording your attempts to analyze them better

[tiny crag]

your copy of the game is personalised just to mess with you, and only you

[livid moss]

what is the video upload limit for Discord if you don't have nitro? 50mb IIRC? I think in the past I have been forced to clip a video to like 2 seconds to squeeze into that limit

[fickle tundra]

its much easier with a stealth loadout, if only vortex had enough 500s

[unique bloom]

have you tried compressing the video in another website, there should be plenty out there

[livid moss]

yeah so that's why I've been suggesting buffing vortex internal A2G load... so, agreement on that?
@unique bloom and then get crap quality and be called fake by the trolls? no thanks.

[fickle tundra]

rolling a nat20

[livid moss]

well that's the point, "rolling a nat 20". BDF can't do with a Vortex that only penetrates naval air defense when it feels like it.

[fickle tundra]

never really felt bad at strike, i dont really see the point in buffing ground ordinance unless its PAB-80LRs though thats for every aircraft

[solid kettle]

The JAGM idea was to give it more capacity for convoy busting, make it competitive with the Compass’s insane 12x AGM-48 and 2x AGM-68 spam

[fickle tundra]

AGM-58 exclusive to fighters, can one shot tanks at any angle and has better speed and range, it suffers from poor anti structure

[livid moss]

do you mean 68 or 48?

[tiny crag]

something like an atp on roids, high pen but lowish yield?

[solid kettle]

The key would be a smaller AGM with terrain following for standoff strikes, so 3-4 can be carried per pylon, like JAGM

[fickle tundra]

https://tenor.com/view/spy-tf2-spy-tf2-correct-spy-tf2-correct-gif-15580627066749528135

[fickle tundra]

balancing could be interesting, if it turns out to be too powerful we can give it the ol' 125 trick and making them internal only

[solid kettle]

I was thinking external only tbh

[livid moss]

seeing the RCS now I see why I never bothered 8x GPO-500 loadout...

[tiny crag]

the kingpin is actually a decent tank buster, 1-2 can reliably kill a tank, expect for the one time a tank ate all 8 of them

[solid kettle]

the issue is the Kingpin is single target and requires LOS- the Compass currently has insane standoff capability with 48 spam

The Vortex (and honestly probably the Ifrit and maybe even Revoker) should have similar capability

[fickle tundra]

you know, you might have a point...

(insert foreshadowing)

[solid kettle]

external only means you can balance around larger quantities of AGMs, with the downside being greater drag and RCS

[fickle tundra]

best basis would probably be the supersonic rated Brimstone triple pylon

[livid moss]

yeah doesn't work in real combat. Gets ARH'd at sea skimming level from 40km+ out.
probably could worth a try in Terminal Control, when enemy's focus is elsewhere, but def not in Carrier Duel.

[solid kettle]

That’s what the most recent Ace Combat did with the F-35C and it was glorious

Given how small the missiles are, I could see it fitting on the Vortex, Ifrit, and Revoker

[fickle tundra]

fighters only seems like a nice balancing choice
-low ranks unable to have access to a powerful and numerous weapon
-bombers unable to have like 10 morbillion of them

[solid kettle]

I originally proposed making the AGM BDF-only to create an interesting alternative to Ifrit bomb spam, but if we get a supersonic bomber that’s on the smaller end of things maybe it should be available across the board to all fighters

It’s just super silly how the subsonic trainer is a better standoff attack platform than cutting edge fighters, and plays a big role in why nobody uses the Vortex for anything other than nukes or specific HVT strikes.

[lime bramble]

hi! ammo for gun could be increased. this is with a ~1125x20mm drum

[dense cypress]

this is also roughly in VTOLvr with the F45, it can carry up to 6x internal “AGM-148’s” (basically imagine our 48’s but with ~30 miles range) on EACH side, up to 12 internally, additionally it can carry 6x on each wing in the form of 2 3x pylons, its crazy fun

[pale radish]

pretty damn good hits

[fickle tundra]

as a more strike oriented fighter it could be beneficial to have extra 20mm to dump on something

[lime bramble]

i propose making the pab80 really nice again

make it tiny

[fickle tundra]

(GBU-53 size)

[solid kettle]

I love it, but the advantage that a JAGM/Brimstone would offer is greater range standoff and faster strike (at the cost of being easier for the enemy to intercept)

ideally we’d get both, along with 6xPAB-125 racks for large wing pylons

[lime bramble]

i would stop at 4x 125

but

[solid kettle]

4x glide bombs, 6x 125s (less range/agility/guidance and worse stealth, horrendous hit to drag/RCS)

gimme dat carpet bombing

[fickle tundra]

maybe if the penalties are high enough

[solid kettle]

cmon even 1970s 4th gens had 6 x 500lb racks

[fickle tundra]

even a smaller plane has more pylons than Revoker

[solid kettle]

tragic, really, plus who doesn’t love carpet bombing?

[fickle tundra]

true, im just thinking, maybe make drag and maneuverability penalties enough so its good against small fry (depots, FOBs, Convoys) but less than ideal to take to take out an airbase in one go (Airbase AD should also square tf up)

[solid kettle]

I’d love if we got the drag bombs that were tested, they didn’t make sense on the Compass but they’d be super fun on supersonic fighters like the Revoker

Payload capacity went out the window when the 20 mil jet trainer got a better standoff loadout than aircraft 4 times its price, I think we should get realistic but impressive bomb loads on 2070 fighters

[dense cypress]

imo we absolutely need 6x racks even if just for the 125’s

[radiant garden]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again I think the big reason Standoff is so wonky only achievable by spam and aircraft are better then penetrating AD then munitions is cause missile interception is way too reliable

[solid kettle]

man seeing this I really kinda think the heater pylons Offiry made for his QoL mod would be a great vanilla addition for the Vortex

[solid kettle]

the flip side of this is AD is massively handicapped at the moment, woefully so, it should be upped across the board- at least at key sites like airbases and factories

[fickle tundra]

(fig 1, fig 2) Revoker sized aircraft loads vs (fig 3) what Revoker actually gets

[wild yew]

when i mentioned canted mounts i was hit with the "single pylons dont have rcs when clean" :C

[radiant garden]

The problem it can't be changed with out changing munition interception, but once interception reliability is changed everything else is cracked open to be changed

[solid kettle]

I avoided bringing it up originally because it would have been a headache for discussion, similar to how the Ifrit heater bays generated immediate strife during the Balancing the Ifrit series (even though now everyone likes em, sigh)

[fickle tundra]

me when free thing is literally free

[wild yew]

the most hilarious thing is the heater bays were always there, just not used for some damn reason

[trim bloom]

so are we going to have a celebration in this thread when it hits 1000 posts

[solid kettle]

why not, the suggestion forum is a psyop anyways

[fickle tundra]

the thread has a great thumbnail i wonder who took that shot

[radiant garden]

Ya I am pretty sure we are just posting into the void

[wild yew]

0.31 drops when this reaches 1000 posts, mitch told me

[wild yew]

i think it has been stated that mitch looks at all the titles and maybe reads the suggestion if it sounds interesting
true change only comes from bothering him personally

[solid kettle]

true change comes from the people Mitch surrounds himself with and then chooses to ignore anyways

or, alternatively: true change comes from the people who suggest random stuff on stream that Mitch then chooses to 100% back to the hilt even when it uh may not be wise

jokes aside, all these threads do is serve as the wick for the bonfire of discussion, which hopefully catches the attention of those who have actual leverage

[radiant garden]

So what sounds like is we need someone needs to worm their way into game with him and perform all the most cancer, broken, and annoying tactics against him

[kind zephyr]

Although it may be difficult to balance a Vortex, I have done some calculations and experimentations on my own using the real life basis of the Vortex: The Sukhoi Su-75. In order to properly balance it, it should be placed such that its center of mass is approximately above the point of balance, or some kind of Fulcrum. With this in mind I have prototyped this balancing model for the Vortex using an Su-75 as a sort of "dummy Vortex" to approximate its physical properties

[wild yew]

its center of mass may change in 0.31, I hope you can account for that

[radiant garden]

Ok wrap it up folks droopys figured this whole thing out, time to head on home

[rotund marten]

14*

[solid kettle]

@lime bramble ur so cheeky I see you

[wild yew]

i just rant about random things in here and steal all the interesting pictures people post (:
m

[dense cypress]

real life basis… su75?
10/10 bait droopsters

[kind zephyr]

im smarter and better than everyone which is why they give me access to developer secrets like AShM-400

[near lily]

Has anyone suggested giving the vortex 4x ARADs? Give it a big niche.

[dense cypress]

the current 4x tusko loadout is better in every way EXCEPT autoseeking radars, but even then by the time youre using a tusko vortex theyre likely on DL by then

unless we also wanna buff ARADs which im completely on board with

[near lily]

ARADs have their uses. They are pretty good at certain ranges, plus they have a low rcs.

[dense cypress]

imo since the tusko has been added it’s seemed better in pretty much every regime

[near lily]

Not gonna disagree, just that the low rcs of the ARADs, make it nice little weapon to take on an otherwise A2A load out.

[fickle tundra]

it has the same RCS as the AGM-48 iirc

[abstract siren]

Honestly, I think aircraft other than the Medusa having more ARADs might not hurt. Maybe I am off base, but it seems like having regular fighters being a bomb truck (or rather ARAD truck) for Medusas would be a nice feature for multiplayer cooperation. I get that the risk is that it diminishes the Medusas role, but I think that jammers and ARADs together are far more powerful at sniping target SAMs to break difficult air defense nets than just ARADs alone.

[fickle tundra]

great, Medusa should be knocked down a peg

[dense cypress]

while i dont disagree my point is that theres currently hardly any reason to take arads imo, and as such giving them to more planes wont really change anything as theyre still going to be suboptimal for the task

[near lily]

ARADs have same RCS as a single scythe

[tiny crag]

Arads have the unique gimmick of having lockon-after-launch. They are less than half the price with similar speed. Arads have an rcs of 0.01 compared to tuskos 0.07 (https://nuclearoption.wiki.gg/wiki/Unit_values)
They are oddly heavy, or the tusko is light

Honestly giving the Vortex internal arads wouldnt be terrible

[near lily]

I'm just thinking outer pylons. I really wish the vortex could have 4x ARH in the inner bay

[fickle tundra]

only issue is size, its 4.4 meters compared to AARGM-ER which is 4 meters, a design made to fit in internal bays

[lime bramble]

no fit

[fickle tundra]

something like AARGM-ER could probably barely fit, maybe, might

ARAD redesign when?

[tiny crag]

I forgot that the Vortex is a short king for a moment. Mini arads then. Slap an emission seeker on a scimitar

[lime bramble]

ARAD-116 engine upgrade, hyper range medusa exlusive

ARAD-somethinglessthan116 general purpose ARAD, made to be carried im scimitar like quantity

[fickle tundra]

think ARAD doesnt hold speed well enough

[tiny crag]

My thinking is make it possible for a stealth Vortex to do some sneaky radar cleanup

[near lily]

After vortex uses the ARADs it's pretty stealthy right?

[vast plank]

single pylon make stealthy

[abstract siren]

So maybe a buff to reduce the loss of speed once the motor burns out? It seems rather aerodynamic and apparently has a far bit of weight, so it should hold speed well due to inertia. I would also say that maybe any pylon that can carry a Tusko should be able to carry an ARAD. It does not make the ARAD perform any better, but given they are half the price and have a lower RCS than the tusko, maybe that is enough? I don't think 2 ARADs without a jammer is enough to do anything meaningful with, but maybe four would be.

Alternatively, in the Boltstrike thread I had an idea for an early warning radar installation that would detect extremely high altitude weapons and aircraft. Maybe teams should be made to work a bit more to get the ability to snipe targets using ballistic weapons that SAMs and other conventional air defenses cannot intercept.

[radiant garden]

I think we should 100% get an smaller ARAD thats just a Scythe or S3 with a passive radar head and a bigger/different warhead

[solid kettle]

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/f-35-vs-j-20-vs-su-57-radar-scattering-simulation-summary/

The canted 9X pylons (with a 9x attached) have very little impact on overall RCS, and from some angles actually appear to reduce RCS (mainly from the side, where the canted pylon reflects radar waves away from the source)

[dawn coyote]

is this a locally authentic source

[solid kettle]

lmaoooooo

it’s basically been the only public facing source I can find that somewhat approximates the actual RCS of stealth aircraft in a detailed manner

[dawn coyote]

low RCS is overrated in some areas for the JSF

[solid kettle]

it is amazing how optimized stealth aircraft are for purely frontal stealth

like they have reduced 360 RCS, sure, but they excel specifically at frontal RCS (and to some extent side RCS, which may help with notching)

[dawn coyote]

they are giving the JSF gorgon stare capability can we put it on the vortex too thanks mitch

[dawn coyote]

notching isn't as important in modern neer peer combat scenarios as it is made to be in NO

[fickle tundra]

yeah easiest way to do good 360 RCS is a flying wing design, which arent particularly good at being fighters, just focus everything in the frontal area, of course F-35 sacrifices some angles due to using a DSI instead of a caret diverter

[solid kettle]

I do wonder how the game would play if we got rid of the defensive jammer and had chaff, and had actual PD vs CW defensive maneuvers

[unique bloom]

i mean they are heading straight for the target in most cases when they pop up for attack

[dawn coyote]

when the ESM equipment picks up the CLRA transmission 😂😂😂

[dense cypress]

casual amy dub yet again

[dense cypress]

i’d love having to notch weave in NO, ironically the current implementation discourages the weave