Jump to content

Helicopters ruining gameplay SB


9 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:


I knew some big brain timer would say you can't compare it ... Well, I have some Statistics playing some Vehicle that was added in 1.97 alongside the Ka-52.

 

Now to my knowledge the Longbow Apache was added in 1.97, but I'm not sure /s :^)

  Hide contents

image.thumb.png.97ca727617eb2e96e77481fb

 

As you can see this is my Lineup currently, with 1.97 I've played NATO only as the Combination of ADATS + AH-64D or ADATS + F-4E ...

 

Now if you compare my AH-64D Sim Stats

 

  Hide contents

image.thumb.png.0e20ffe3876d4bfa3ffcf000

 

You can CLEARLY see that I'm winning the Majority of the battles with a whooping 82% WR ...

 

How is that possible ?

 

A.) Did I win in 80 out of 97 Battles and not encounter a single Ka-50/52 ? 

B.) By sheer luck and all of my enemies disconnected when the battle started

C.) I know how to play the ADATS ? 

 

I said it once and I'll say it again ... The Majority of NATO players are simply garbage, period, the only reason they won High Tier Sim until Patch 1.97 was because of superior vehicles, that's about it.

 

All of you that complain, hurr durr, NATO so bad lately are just simply xxxx garbage, period, good players still win their battles playing NATO while the barely mediocre player finally sees how "good" they are.

 

Once again you failed so hard, I would say gg wp again but I don't wanna beat you again :o)

What exactly is the AH-64D telling us, that helis are ridiculous? 


Btw I don't complain about NATO. I complain about helis :)

 

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Because you're too bad at shooting them down ? Gotcha buddy, totally gotcha ;) 

 

No I just think it's stupid that it's possible a helicopter can be better at killing tanks than a tank, better at killing jets than an spaa and better at killing helis all at the same time with just as little effort.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

No I just think it's stupid that it's possible a helicopter can be better at killing tanks than a tank

 

Ah yes, but then again, Helos are designed to destroy tanks ... Of course you could say tanks are designed to kill tanks and you're completely right about that, but Helos are airborne and can be deployed way faster.

 

I also see that you (how many weeks is it now ? 2 weeks ?) didn't read up on the Ansbach Tests which I highly recommended you to do so, but instead you keep complaining and complaining.

 

3 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

better at killing jets than an spaa

 

Nope, against a good Jet Pilot I'm done. Go ahead and ask good Sim Jet pilots, I'm unable to do anything about it and I'm just dead meat.

 

But then again, we already had that discussion and you brought up J-Catch and still can't see that Helos are indeed good at defending off Jets ... I can also quote a greek instructor flying the Apache for the Hellenic Army, you want me to ? Maybe you believe things from people that actually fly Helicopters and say they are perfectly capable of shooting down Jets ?

 

7 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

better at killing helis

 

The Ka-50/52 was also designed shooting down Helicopters, that's LITERALLY one reason the Vikhr was designed for, what the actual quackers.

 

You do know that the US Army considered funding a special Helicopter Unit, specifically designed to only engage other Helicopters ? One of the aftermaths of J-Catch but the US Army didn't think it was necessary :o)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lennox, you are trying to argue with guy whose response to vikhr is aa weapon designed to shoot down heli, was lets add nuclear weapons to all US plane capable to carry them, even though all these planes were hevilly modified to carry them. Its waste of time. Even i can see it now after flying ka50 in sim and its hard AF to do well in it. I still prefer t80u far over ka50 in dealimg with tanks. I was super hater of kamovs, not anymore when ive got ka50, best heli? Probably? OP? Hell no. If plane attacks you from same flight level, he deserves to die, you shouldnt ever engage AA capable heli from any angle exept top down. I can shoot down planes left to right in dcs ka50 too if they are going straight on me on same level or only slightly above. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Lennox, you are trying to argue with guy whose response to vikhr is aa weapon designed to shoot down heli, was lets add nuclear weapons to all US plane capable to carry them, even though all these planes were hevilly modified to carry them. Its waste of time. Even i can see it now after flying ka50 in sim and its hard AF to do well in it. I still prefer t80u far over ka50 in dealimg with tanks. I was super hater of kamovs, not anymore when ive got ka50, best heli? Probably? OP? Hell no. If plane attacks you from same flight level, he deserves to die, you shouldnt ever engage AA capable heli from any angle exept top down. I can shoot down planes left to right in dcs ka50 too if they are going straight on me on same level or only slightly above. 

 

Yeah I've just read that on the other thread, had to giggle :^)

 

If people would actually bother to research for once instead of going straight for complaining they would find so much studies about Helicopters vs. Tanks that have been done over the last few decades.

 

These studies have been done in the 70's - 80's, so tech changed a lot back then but the quintessence is that any Heli will **** on Tanks pretty easily.

 

a.) The Ansbach Test

b.) THE TANK-ATTACK HELICOPTER IN THE EUROPEAN MID-INTENSITY CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT: AN OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF COMPETITIVENESS/COMPATIBILITY

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b006705.pdf (also takes the Ansbach Test into consideration)

 

As well as this beautiful study of how important a Helo against Helo Unit is.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Clearly shows what Helicopters are capable of ... I know, I know ... Most of you will not read the Studies because there are too many words in it but maybe at least one will read it and finally understand what I'm talking about. 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Yeah I've just read that on the other thread, had to giggle :^)

 

If people would actually bother to research for once instead of going straight for complaining they would find so much studies about Helicopters vs. Tanks that have been done over the last few decades.

 

These studies have been done in the 70's - 80's, so tech changed a lot back then but the quintessence is that any Heli will **** on Tanks pretty easily.

 

a.) The Ansbach Test

b.) THE TANK-ATTACK HELICOPTER IN THE EUROPEAN MID-INTENSITY CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT: AN OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF COMPETITIVENESS/COMPATIBILITY

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b006705.pdf (also takes the Ansbach Test into consideration)

 

As well as this beautiful study of how important a Helo against Helo Unit is.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Clearly shows what Helicopters are capable of ... I know, I know ... Most of you will not read the Studies because there are too many words in it but maybe at least one will read it and finally understand what I'm talking about. 

 

 

 

 

Dont you have better quality somewhere? Iam seriously unable to read it but i would like too. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Dont you have better quality somewhere? Iam seriously unable to read it but i would like too. 

 

Sadly not that I could have find yet, sorry about that :(

The quality is a poor scan yes, sometimes I really had a hard time to read some words as well but what you can do (sometimes the words get a little bit messed up but you can figure them out) take a paragraph, copy it and paste it into Word for example :)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Lennox, you are trying to argue with guy whose response to vikhr is aa weapon designed to shoot down heli, was lets add nuclear weapons to all US plane capable to carry them, even though all these planes were hevilly modified to carry them. Its waste of time. Even i can see it now after flying ka50 in sim and its hard AF to do well in it. I still prefer t80u far over ka50 in dealimg with tanks. I was super hater of kamovs, not anymore when ive got ka50, best heli? Probably? OP? Hell no. If plane attacks you from same flight level, he deserves to die, you shouldnt ever engage AA capable heli from any angle exept top down. I can shoot down planes left to right in dcs ka50 too if they are going straight on me on same level or only slightly above. 

The nuclear bomb response was because of your ridiculous balance statement regarding Vikhr.

 

Abrams should get m900 if we followed your logic. "The M900 was designed for the 105 so it should get it and it don't matter about balance"

 

  

2 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Ah yes, but then again, Helos are designed to destroy tanks ... Of course you could say tanks are designed to kill tanks and you're completely right about that, but Helos are airborne and can be deployed way faster.

 

I also see that you (how many weeks is it now ? 2 weeks ?) didn't read up on the Ansbach Tests which I highly recommended you to do so, but instead you keep complaining and complaining.

 

 

Nope, against a good Jet Pilot I'm done. Go ahead and ask good Sim Jet pilots, I'm unable to do anything about it and I'm just dead meat.

 

But then again, we already had that discussion and you brought up J-Catch and still can't see that Helos are indeed good at defending off Jets ... I can also quote a greek instructor flying the Apache for the Hellenic Army, you want me to ? Maybe you believe things from people that actually fly Helicopters and say they are perfectly capable of shooting down Jets ?

 

 

The Ka-50/52 was also designed shooting down Helicopters, that's LITERALLY one reason the Vikhr was designed for, what the actual quackers.

 

You do know that the US Army considered funding a special Helicopter Unit, specifically designed to only engage other Helicopters ? One of the aftermaths of J-Catch but the US Army didn't think it was necessary :o)

 

You do realise this is a video game right?


You keep trying to justify an overpowered vehicle because it's "realistic"

 

If there was a semblance of balance it wouldn't even be 10.0 or 10.3, therefore not even in the events lulz. 

 

It's funny you talk about J-Catch again. I am the one who said that helis were very good against planes myself  and only with modern jets and ordinance do they start to get much better numbers. Yet, in this game we don't have those jets. Therefore there is a balance problem.

 

This is like putting the Leopard 2A7 in the game and being like "yo bro don't complain it's realistic that it owns other tanks, especially T-80  because that tank is from the 80's it deserves to lose"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DaffanZ
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DaffanZ said:

The nuclear bomb response was because of your ridiculous balance statement regarding Vikhr.

 

@MysteriousHonza said that the Vikhr missile was designed both as an AG/AA Missile, what's wrong about that ? Your response to his statement (which is true by the way, you can deny that as much as you want) was that the US should get nuclear bombs, yeah I had to giggle there.

 

Or why did you bring up the Nuclear bomb in the first place then ?  

 

1 minute ago, DaffanZ said:

You do realise this is a video game right?


You keep trying to justify an overpowered vehicle because it's "realistic"

 

If there was a semblance of balance it wouldn't even be 10.0 or 10.3, therefore not even in the events lulz. 

 

Uhm ... Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuhm ... You do know that Simulator Mode and all the people playing Simulator mode want it to be as realistic as possible right ? I mean that's one of the reasons why we're playing Simulator Mode in the first place.

 

And yes, I did notice that this is a video game, when people get destroyed in their vehicle they don't die in real life, dunno if you noticed that by now but shhh, let's keep it a secret okay ? No words to the big guys out there.

 

It doesn't matter if it's overpowered or not, if it is implemented realistically it has a place in War Thunder ... I see that by now you still didn't click on my links and at least read the Conclusion of the Studies, I mean seriously, how can you still argue about things you absolutely and without any doubt got no clue about ? I've told you this so many times now, you don't know anything about Helos, nor AA and you're still one of the people that write the most about Helicopters being OP ... This is just so ridiculous, holy mother of god.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

It's funny you talk about J-Catch again. I am the one who said that helis were very good against planes myself  and only with modern jets and ordinance do they start to get much better numbers. Yet, in this game we don't have those jets. Therefore there is a balance problem.

 

Why do you continue to lie about things ? 

 

According to this thread you didn't say anything about J-CATCH, it was me that brought up J-CATCH (not as J-CATCH per se but I said that fighter pilots even today should engage helos only at specific angles)

EDIT: Let's rephrase it ... You didn't say anything about J-CATCH until I brought up J-CATCH ... What you did when I replied saying that Fighter pilots are trained to attack is simple ... You googled it, plain and simple googled it and then for the first time in your life you've heard of J-CATCH. 

You've lied so many times and I've exposed you multiple times now, why do you still keep doing it ? Isn't it kind of pathetic ?

 

And I've also explained how modern jets with AIM-7's wouldn't do **** about Helos, but you also continue to ignore that fact ... You're a lost case and that's one of the reasons why I stopped replying in the other thread to you ... Not a single argument of yours makes sense. 

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

@MysteriousHonza said that the Vikhr missile was designed both as an AG/AA Missile, what's wrong about that ? Your response to his statement (which is true by the way, you can deny that as much as you want) was that the US should get nuclear bombs, yeah I had to giggle there.

 

He is saying that the missile balance is fine because it is realistic. Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it is balanced.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Uhm ... Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuhm ... You do know that Simulator Mode and all the people playing Simulator mode want it to be as realistic as possible right ? I mean that's one of the reasons why we're playing Simulator Mode in the first place.

 

That's exactly why I am all for MFD :) 

  

4 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Why do you continue to lie about things ? 

 

According to this thread you didn't say anything about J-CATCH, it was me that brought up J-CATCH (not as J-CATCH per se but I said that fighter pilots even today should engage helos only at specific angles)

EDIT: Let's rephrase it ... You didn't say anything about J-CATCH until I brought up J-CATCH ... What you did when I replied saying that Fighter pilots are trained to attack is simple ... You googled it, plain and simple googled it and then for the first time in your life you've heard of J-CATCH. 

You've lied so many times and I've exposed you multiple times now, why do you still keep doing it ? Isn't it kind of pathetic ?

 

And I've also explained how modern jets with AIM-7's wouldn't do **** about Helos, but you also continue to ignore that fact ... You're a lost case and that's one of the reasons why I stopped replying in the other thread to you ... Not a single argument of yours makes sense. 

 

When your argument is so bad you have to spend a whole post saying the same thing in different ways in order to try and make sense

 

btw  CTRL + F

 

If the jet doesn't matter can we haz F-22 Raptor plz sir

 

 

Edited by DaffanZ
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaffanZ said:

 

He is saying that the missile balance is fine because it is realistic. Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it is balanced.

 

And once again, you can't have Balance when you want Realism and vice versa, at this point you'll never understand that.

 

Quote

That's exactly why I am all for MFD :) 

 

Sure, but at the same time you're for Tanks losing 3rd View, getting realistic gunning, getting rid of the ridiculous default sight etc, am I right ? 

 

I know that you're not, you already replied that Tanks shouldn't lose 3rd View and all that stuff ... So how come you're okay with Helicopters getting more realistic while you're against Tanks being more realistic ?

 

Quote

  When your argument is so bad you have to spend a whole post saying the same thing in different ways in order to try and make sense

 

btw  CTRL + F

 

If the jet doesn't matter can we haz F-22 Raptor plz sir

 

No, because I know otherwise you would go for the straw man again and pick a single sentence and try to twist it :o)

 

How come you don't reply again that you brought J-CATCH ? Is it because of the fact that you didn't ? Hmm, strange indeed :o)

 

Sure, you can have all the F-22 Raptor you want, you can even have an Su-57, Bf-109 or whatever you want, it wouldn't matter (in terms of Radar etc.) ... The only thing that could technically help is if you Mad Dog launch AIM-120's or the AIM-9X, every other Missile won't help defeating Helicopters ... The fact that you clearly have no idea how Helicopters, Radar and Missiles work is hilarious, just look at your argument that you want AIM-7 Sparrows when the recommendation of the J-CATCH advisors literally say that they don't recommend Sparrows for shooting down Helicopters :D 

 

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

And once again, you can't have Balance when you want Realism and vice versa, at this point you'll never understand that.

 

Right, but it's 10x more balanced than now. So unless you think nothing should be done? lmao

 

27 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Sure, but at the same time you're for Tanks losing 3rd View, getting realistic gunning, getting rid of the ridiculous default sight etc, am I right ? 

 

 Lol   I've been posting about v-joy for tanks forever but anyway. https://imgur.com/YxMHhg2

 

U fail to understand. I always put gameplay first, if it can be both realistic and good gameplay than it is even better (MFD).

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

How come you don't reply again that you brought J-CATCH ? Is it because of the fact that you didn't ? Hmm, strange indeed :o)

 

 

 

 

bro, what do you think CTRL + F means

 

27 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

 

 

Sure, you can have all the F-22 Raptor you want, you can even have an Su-57, Bf-109 or whatever you want, it wouldn't matter (in terms of Radar etc.) ... The only thing that could technically help is if you Mad Dog launch AIM-120's or the AIM-9X, every other Missile won't help defeating Helicopters ... The fact that you clearly have no idea how Helicopters, Radar and Missiles work is hilarious, just look at your argument that you want AIM-7 Sparrows when the recommendation of the J-CATCH advisors literally say that they don't recommend Sparrows for shooting down Helicopters :D 

 

 

Why are you talking about missiles only

 

is F-22 only a flying missile

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, later models of aim7s like M and P are quite good in taking out helis, they introduced new filters in them so they can guide on radar reflections of rotor blades that rapidly changes. But for that you need modern PD radar from f15C, F18C, F14D or anything with Pesa/Aesa and i am pretty sure there are no moder jets capable to shoot aim7M or P with aesa or pesa. Even F14a/b powerful AWG9 would struggle against helo and everything you have to do then is slow down below 100kts so you get into doppler filter. But shooting sahr on heli is quite dangerous as launch have to be from quite short ranges where heli can engage you and pure topdown attack is meh for any missile. But i do agree with @DaffanZ in one thing, we need mouse joystick for tanks. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Btw, later models of aim7s like M and P are quite good in taking out helis, they introduced new filters in them so they can guide on radar reflections of rotor blades that rapidly changes. But for that you need modern PD radar from f15C, F18C, F14D or anything with Pesa/Aesa and i am pretty sure there are no moder jets capable to shoot aim7M or P with aesa or pesa. Even F14a/b powerful AWG9 would struggle against helo and everything you have to do then is slow down below 100kts so you get into doppler filter. But shooting sahr on heli is quite dangerous as launch have to be from quite short ranges where heli can engage you and pure topdown attack is meh for any missile. But i do agree with @DaffanZ in one thing, we need mouse joystick for tanks. 

 

passive IR missiles should be fine though... LWS don't give a warning for them so as long as you approach without line o sight you should be golden (for some reason in WT it does).

Then you have mid range passive IR missiles like the R27T that should do the trick. Yes early heat seekers would struggle to find the ka 50 and ka 52 due to their somewhat "cold" exhausts, but the all aspect aim-9J should be able to do it from a reasonable range without trigering any LWS (as it doesn't have a laser). AFAIK the only Ka ever fitted with MAW were the egyptian Ka-52, not sure about the ka-52K but that isn't in game. Passive IR-Missiles should therefore not give a warning in WT and especialy the AIM-9J should be very good at shooting helos.

 

Yes helicopters are somewhat capable of beating fighters if they are aware of them... but that is the point, in J-CATCH they knew thew needed to fight aircraft. But if helicopters aren't looking for aircraft and only rely on their sensors that they should be relatively easy kills. Even with a RWR, there is very little a helicoptercan do to defeat a Radar guided missile other than quickly getting into cover. IR missiles are actually worse, yes if you see them being fired you can deploy flares, all fair and good. But in reality few helicopters have an MAW system (and no a LWS does not help against missiles fired with passiveIR). so fire a missile from above or behind a helo and that helo is dead. The result of J-CATCH was that helicopters are devastating in a gun fight. but even with Guns some planes were effective against them. With Sparrows the planes were at an advantage and the best tactic that was firing sidewinders from 2.5km at a helo. You can read the instructions on how to attack helos born out of J-CATCH here:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

So the advantage of a helicopter is only in a gun fight. Wich should be clear to anyone as Helicopters are to sow to defeat missiles other than deploying countermeasures and hoping for the best. Es pecially in WT where most of the helos are focussed on ground targets and only rely on their sensors for anti air warnings more realistic depiction of missiles and the electronics of helos. If you fire a mssile at close ranges like 1km the pilot will only have about 1-2 seconds to react. i don't know if helos get a warning before the missile is launched in WT (they shouldn't with missiles fired in passive IR). But i saw helos deploying flares at least immidiately after i fired a passive IR missle at the,. They coudln't have visual because i attacked from high 6. So what warned him? the LWS? can't be the missile used passive IR. MAW? unlikely they have a response time of about 1 second, and he flared immidiately (i fired at abot 1km with a 750m/s+ sidewinder). No the answer is that this is a crappy implementation of how warning systems work. 

 

The second thing i am not sure about (and sadly was unable to find info on) is that helos are really hard to lock on with early rear aspect sidewinders, wich might be reasonable as Turboshaft engines do runs somewhat "cold". but i never had a lock from more than 1.5km. Also it somehow always revealed my position, wich again should not be possible: As the RWR shouldn't find me my RADAR was turned off. The LWS shouldn't find me or the missile because there was no laser involved. The MAW shouldn't find me because that only works after the missile is launched (maybe it recognized me as a missile but omehow that never happens if i am not firing sidewinders). The MAW should detect missiles with a delay, for missiles fired from 1km the warning should come too late, as even if it takes 0.5 seconds the player only has 0.5 seconds to react.

 

so there is something wrong here. 

 

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Btw, later models of aim7s like M and P are quite good in taking out helis, they introduced new filters in them so they can guide on radar reflections of rotor blades that rapidly changes. But for that you need modern PD radar from f15C, F18C, F14D or anything with Pesa/Aesa and i am pretty sure there are no moder jets capable to shoot aim7M or P with aesa or pesa. Even F14a/b powerful AWG9 would struggle against helo and everything you have to do then is slow down below 100kts so you get into doppler filter. But shooting sahr on heli is quite dangerous as launch have to be from quite short ranges where heli can engage you and pure topdown attack is meh for any missile. But i do agree with @DaffanZ in one thing, we need mouse joystick for tanks. 

It's not just about the missiles on modern jets.

 

It's about the benefit it brings of everything else too. If exist 2000-2010 heli and it's   'balanced' and realism is paramount to these people. Why not jet too? Kappa

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

It's not just about the missiles on modern jets.

 

It's about the benefit it brings of everything else too. If exist 2000-2010 heli and it's   'balanced' and realism is paramount to these people. Why not jet too? Kappa

 

being one of "these people":

 

realism has nothing to do with historical accuracy. They are two completely different things. You can have the Bismarck fighting old ironsights and it can still be 100% realistic as long as the portrayed objects have the physical attributes they had/have in real life.

 

People confuse historical accuracy or historical authenticity with realism all the time.... does not mean they are the same.

 

One of the major reasons Siulators exist is to get the realistic outcome of "What if scenarios". It is pretty much the point of most simulations, like simulated crash tests. The car being crashed never existed in real life, that doesn't mean the result can't be realistic. If it wasn't realistic car companies would stop doing these simulations.

I don't think we need more modern aircraft to "balance" this situation. realistic warning systems and missiles should do the trick.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

being one of "these people":

 

realism has nothing to do with historical accuracy. They are two completely different things. You can have the Bismarck fighting old ironsights and it can still be 100% realistic as long as the portrayed objects have the physical attributes they had/have in real life.

 

People confuse historical accuracy or historical authenticity with realism all the time.... does not mean they are the same.

 

One of the major reasons Siulators exist is to get the realistic outcome of "What if scenarios". It is pretty much the point of most simulations, like simulated crash tests. The car being crashed never existed in real life, that doesn't mean the result can't be realistic. If it wasn't realistic car companies would stop doing these simulations.

I don't think we need more modern aircraft to "balance" this situation. realistic warning systems and missiles should do the trick.

yet people tell me that people like SB because of the (horrible) event matchup capability

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aim9j wont acquire modern heli at all from decent range, maybe from point blank range, even 9m have problems with helis. Not to mention its not all aspect at all. To beat sahr you only need to stay stationary. It actually applies for all early AHR missiles, later ones and 7M or P wont hit at all without support of strong radar. Something like 120A or B will struggle to find hovering heli. Next, r27t is russian missile with total garbage seekerhead that have to be extremely sensitive to be deployed on long ranges so flares will spoof it without problem. To employ r27t on flanker or fulcrum, you have to either acquire target with STT so itll trigger rwr as neither of them have proper TWS or you have to lock it with irst which is binded with laser to get range info - will trigger laser sensors on heli so 27t is big nono. Anti heli combat against heli equiped with AA weapons is actually far deadlier for plane than proper AA fight against other plane because heli is small target with almost nonexistant heat signature and small rcs and without proper radar, rotor blades reflections will fuckup "brain" of all fox1s and early fox3s. Properly flown heli at small altitudes near to ground is extremely deadly opponent, howering heli in 1-3km? Easy food for even old fox1s as radar return from body of heli is enough to guide it on it but near ground? With such small rcs and withou modern missiles? Oh good luck surviving. We will get aim7E at best and this wont hit low alt heli at all. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

yet people tell me that people like SB because of the (horrible) event matchup capability

 

 

 

wich makes them wrong. we are talking about realism in media (i.e. a video game) therefore we are using realism in the same context you would use for a painiting.

 

A Picture is realistic if the objects are represented with the right dimensions and physical attributes. The context is irrelevant. You can paint some fruiton a plate. To the question if the picture is realistic it is irrelevant if the plate you painted ever existed, the color scheme can be absolutely unique as long as it has all the properties of a plate and such a plate must be possible to exist. But it doesn't have to be a plate that ever existed to be realistic.

 

same with car design you can design a car unlike anything that has ever been built, but it can be realistic as long as such a car can be build and work. Otherwise every new car design would be unrealistic. But an unrealistic car design could never be built in the real world... because it is unrealistic by definition. So historical precedent obviously isn't needed for realism.


Historical precedent aso isn't needed for Simulators, because creating what if scenarios and testing stuff that has never been produced before is pretty much the origin of simulators. Why should simulators for gaming be any different. For example if we have a Simulator hat intends to recreate ww2 and we introduce the f4e phantom into it, then it no longer represents ww2 but it does not stop being a simulator, why would it anyway? If that was true then a windtunnel simuation on the aerodynamics of a car if the windspeed is 5000mph doesn't stop being a simulation only because we don't have windtunnels going that fast.
As long as it accurately represents what happens in this case it is a simulation.


Distorting the historical context for balance is therefore fine by me. I also think a BR system can work very well for that (however it needs to be more mathematically sound than this one, it shouldn't contain averages i.e. the arithmetic mean... but that is another topic entirely). While i think historical battles are fun from time to time, i d olike what if scenarios. And what i would find the most interesting would be a more sandboxy expirience where the decision where to fight whom aren't made yet and are made organically by players in a sim enviroment. However that is a pipe dream and i don't think that many people would be interested in it. WT definately isn't the place for it, but for a while i thought world war would go into that direction.
I mind captured vehiclesmore because of the gameplay reasons than historical reasons. I don't mind italians having shermans per se. I do find that we are unable to differentiate them and the fact that the opponent has the identical tank to your own. I am also fine with nation v nation matchmaking, so we aren't locked into axis v allies and washaw pact v Nato. Sadly with the amount of duplicates between nations this would be a desaster atm. But none ofthat would be unrealistic, it just wouldn't be historical... wich i actually don't care for that much. A system like we have in SB Air with the rooms would be the best solutions. so everyone wanting historical battles can create those and people into what if scenarios can create those. I am simply into realism and sim aspects when it comes to WT i want cehicles the operate and have the abilities that are similiar to the ones they have irl. And compromises are fine if the compromize is realistic and could have existed (like all planes having the same radar screen as long as it works like a radar screen).

 

 

But yeah, people arguing that real simulators are historically accurate are simply wrong. You can have historical matchups in WoT (theyexisted once don't know if they still do), but that doesn't make it a simulator. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Aim9j wont acquire modern heli at all from decent range, maybe from point blank range, even 9m have problems with helis. Not to mention its not all aspect at all. To beat sahr you only need to stay stationary. It actually applies for all early AHR missiles, later ones and 7M or P wont hit at all without support of strong radar. Something like 120A or B will struggle to find hovering heli. Next, r27t is russian missile with total garbage seekerhead that have to be extremely sensitive to be deployed on long ranges so flares will spoof it without problem.

 

and the helo knows he was shot at how exactly? R27T won't give a LWS warning, it can be fired in BVR... so what exactly will cause the helo to deploy flares?

That was my entire point, the helo will be dead before he knows there is actually someone shooting at him.

 

7 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

To employ r27t on flanker or fulcrum, you have to either acquire target with radar so itll trigger rwr as neither 29/27 have proper TWS or you have to lock it with irst which is binded with laser to get range info - will trigger laser sensors on heli so 27t is big nono.

 

what? so you acquire the target with radar from long range, now the optical sensor also has the target thanks to the radar. You can now deactivate your radar and the optcs will still have the helo locked. It won't give a missile warning to the helo, even if fired with the radar still being locked on the helo. So how does the helo know a heat seeker was fired? he can guess a R27R was fired, but that would give a warning. maybe a radar missile in flood mode. still no reason to deploy flares. So what will be the magical reason the helo uses his flares? Yo are still in the scenario where the helicopter knows his opponent is a plane. This doesn't reflect the scenaro we have where helos do concentrate on ground targets and get intercepted. so the plane has the option to be undetected.

 

7 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

 

Anti heli combat against heli equiped with AA weapons is actually far deadlier for plane than proper AA fight against other plane because heli is small target with almost no existant heat signature and small rcs a without proper radar, rotor blades reflections will fuckup "brain" if all fox1 and early fox2s. Properly flown heli at small altitudes near to ground is extremely deadly opponent, howering heli in 1-3km? Easy food for even old fox1s as radar return from body of heli is enough to guide it on it but near ground? With such small rcs and withou modern missiles? Oh good luck surviving. We will get aim7E at best and this wont hit low alt heli at all. 

 

Yes a helo using cover will be a dangerous opponent. But that is fine compared to WT helos atm wich aren't well flown and don't need to be.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

and the helo knows he was shot at how exactly? R27T won't give a LWS warning, it can be fired in BVR... so what exactly will cause the helo to deploy flares?

That was my entire point, the helo will be dead before he knows there is actually someone shooting at him.

 

 

what? so you acquire the target with radar from long range, now the optical sensor also has the target thanks to the radar. You can now deactivate your radar and the optcs will still have the helo locked. It won't give a missile warning to the helo, even if fired with the radar still being locked on the helo. So how does the helo know a heat seeker was fired? he can guess a R27R was fired, but that would give a warning. maybe a radar missile in flood mode. still no reason to deploy flares. So what will be the magical reason the helo uses his flares? Yo are still in the scenario where the helicopter knows his opponent is a plane. This doesn't reflect the scenaro we have where helos do concentrate on ground targets and get intercepted. so the plane has the option to be undetected.

 

 

Yes a helo using cover will be a dangerous opponent. But that is fine compared to WT helos atm wich aren't well flown and don't need to be.

R27s have huuuge smoke trail, each time ive got radar spike i turn its way and i start searching, ka52 will use thermals and see missile. If you use radar and then eo, right after dropping radar lock, laser activates so heli is being illuminated by laser range finder, same results, i know iam being engaged, in real heli, it shows direction from where, ill turn that way and ill see that launch as you can spot these smoke trails miles away. The way how you should defend is prior to enemy launch, you should deny your opponent launch, not counter already launched weapon, proper defense is to break enemy attack without being fired upon you. Everything you need for this is rwr spike or laser warning system to force you into defensive. Each tine i fly dcs and iam below 10nm with high approach speed on headon to enemy plane, i start flaring, especially against aim9 launcher because 9m is smokeless, i expect hes going to launch so i deploy flares before he attacks, if he launches, aim9 will be dead right after launch. Thats the way to defend, not to wait for opponent to fire. Each time you give enemy launch, his pk gets higher as he can close in more for closer launch with far better PK whlie you are force to fight with missile and not enemy plane and your live chances significantly drop. And iam sure lennox knows that and thats why hes hammering those unawere people out there who claims something but actually knows nothing about slightly more modern combat than korea. Sorry for english if there are misspelled words or absolutely nonsense ones, iam writing it on phone in work and my keyboar correction is not 100% in english so it changes words and i have fat fingers so somrtimes word looks strange. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

R27s have huuuge smoke trail, each time ive got radar spike i turn its way and i start searching, ka52 will use thermals and see missile. If you use radar and then eo, right after dropping radar lock, laser activates so heli is being illuminated by laser range finder, same results, know iam being engaged, in real heli, it shows durection from where, ill turn that way and ill see that launch as you can spot these smoke trails miles away. The way how you should defend is prior to enemy launch, you should deny your opponent launch, not counter already launched weapon, proper defense is vreak enemy attack without being fired upon you. Everything you need for this is rwr spike or laser warbing system to force you into defensive. Each tine i fly dcs and iam below 10nm with high approach speed on headon to enemy plane, i start flaring, especially against aim9 launcher because 9m is smokeless so i expect hes going to launch so i deploy flares before he attacks so if he launches, aim9 will be dead right after launch. Thats the way to defend, not to wait for opponent to fire. 

 

that again cn be avoided by acquiring your position then shutting down radar. I already have your position, you are to slow to move very far in that time. i can redirect my aproach and still attack you with passive ir. No laser warning no RWR warning after repositioning. hell i don't even need to lock you. Also what is the RWR coverage on the ka 50?

Also all this is unnecessary in WT. So what you are now representing is a specific scenario where everything is done right. Not the average engagement. This no longer has anything to do with the physical capabilities of the vehicle. That get's launch warnings for passive IR missiles immidiately in WT wich it should not.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

that again cn be avoided by acquiring your position then shutting down radar. I already have your position, you are to slow to move very far in that time. i can redirect my aproach and still attack you with passive ir. No laser warning no RWR warning after repositioning. hell i don't even need to lock you. Also what is the RWR coverage on the ka 50?

Also all this is unnecessary in WT. So what you are now representing is a specific scenario where everything is done right. Not the average engagement. This no longer has anything to do with the physical capabilities of the vehicle. That get's launch warnings for passive IR missiles immidiately in WT wich it should not. 

You lock me with radar, i know enemy tries to engage me, r27t cant be fired without radar or irst lock, with radar i have rwr spike, with irst i have laser warning because irst is using laser rangefinder to get range info and you CANT turn that laser off if you have me locked with irst and i already know you are attacking me, generaly rwr is 360°around and 45° up and down so you have to be really close and high to be outside of its detection zone. You have to close in then with radar turned off so no sa or updates on position of heli, you have to close in on heli that is already aware of enemy so its down low, listening and looking around, with thermal equiped heli, your chances to spot it first are even smaller. Kamov can go over 300kph, that is fast enough to change position significantly to find better cover and better position to fight. + version of ka50 we have in game have lws and mws, both of these systems are equiped on ka50 modernisation and mws spots ir launch signatures up to few kms and it reacts immediately, its connected to flare system. Its proven from french and chinese ones that it can also spot missile long after launch because its nosecone is superhot from friction.

 

 

This is the best simulation and most accured you can get. We are going to get modernisation of ka50 with iglas and mws in dcs, rwr is only problem which is missing but there is bunch of vehicles that never had it, yet ingame they have it and in incorrect way. Actually mws on ka50 is wrong too as it should show range and direction of launch so you get exact position of launcher, we dont have it in wt on ka50 so rwr can be justified. Yet there are some indications that upgrade president system(mws) comes with rwr too but not sure about that. Iglas and mws shows us that we have latest modernisation of ka50 in game with still missing features, btw, on ka50, you can carry 4 iglas and full payload of vikhrs. Not that butchered half payload. 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245293

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...