?
I used in game values
So that’s why
Well the loss would be around 2kg of TNT equivalent
But I don’t know where I could see the mass of the whole missile if it’s modelled
The source provides only an estimated value of six times the charge diameter without a more precise interpretation. Since the in-game value of 900 mm aligns with this description and falls within the stated limits, we believe current value is correct and does not require any changes. Report closed
🙁
Yep, 900 fits just right
1 Like
I see, well then I’ll have to get some other things
Would it help if you were to include more secondary sources like the one from forecast international? If we won’t see an increase to 1000mm maybe to 950mm would happen
It’s good to see that they’re looking at the bug reports but why is it always the fixes that result in it getting a “nerf”.
Surely it’s not that hard to change a couple of values.
7 Likes
It’s always faster to nerf than buff.
2 Likes
Yeah, it always rubs me the wrong way because it just feels like they are always itching to find a reason to “nerf” it for certain vehicles. But the moment it’s a buff, they be acting like professors from Harvard asking for countless sources.
God forbid an spaa gets a buff to counter CAS aircrafts
4 Likes
So ADATS suck now?
Yeah, funny how the F-16C’s targeting pod got nerfed to gen 1 thermals like a week after it was added even though the resolution was closer to gen 3s, or the fact that brimstones were artificially nerfed before they were added merely because they would be “OP,” but God forbid that the Kh-38s get nerfed.
2 Likes
Look through it, radar included, about the penetration values I believe it won’t be changed because of the 850mm and max of 1100mm. I could send 2 responses based on the radar increased range bug report and the “auto lead” capability you reported too.
Edit: modified access so all can see it, my bad
7 Likes
Very interesting! Thank you for getting these materials
1 Like
I will be honest, the radar coverage is a wild one
Considerign how Gaijin models radars, it would have a enormous 74 degree of vertical coverage (just after i explain to them that both beams are produced at the same time).
Im trying to work out how to bite it.
6 Likes
Don’t rush it lmao, in just glad I could get more info, idk about the pen tho, just leave it as is
My favorite SPAA system, how could I not try to make it more accurate
How do you obtain this vertical coverage? Is it possible to approximate it using only the maximum height and range?