Man thats Bad, i wonder on what was the change based
Here is the source they got the data from:
Spoiler
3 Likes
You broke something
yep, fixed
Seems like a viable Sauce to me
1 Like
I’ve reported the BOL IR change internally. Don’t know how successful I’ll be, but its worth trying.
Report;
Spoiler
Issue
In patch 2.33.0.85 BOL countermeasures were reduced in effectiveness and to combat this the release count was doubled. This is heavily impacted certain airframes with the number of available “pops” of countermeasures available.
The increase pop count should be reversed, as all BOL equipped aircraft already carry at least 2 dispensers and even with the reduced effectiveness they would still be dispensing two CM’s per pop.
Suggestion
Reduced burn time is fine.
Reduced luminosity should be reverted (as we do not model the large cloud of pyrophoric material ejected from the launcher which disperses similar to chaff, this would massively increase the capture area of BOL IR)
Increased release count should be reverted, if players want to release more they can increase the continuous release count or release more manually.
Additional Info
As a result airframes such as the tornado_f3 and tornado_adv have had their CM counts massively reduced;
All flares or Chaff
96 shots down from 192
Mixed flares and Chaff
48 down from 96
BOL IR is tuned specifically to IR wave lengths and as a result non of the material is wasted on wave lengths that would not distract an IR missile.
Spoiler
The IR image generated by a BOL release looks like this;
As you can see the BOL IR is very effective at generating a large IR cloud to decoy a missile.
Spoiler
Affected Vehicles
- tornado_f3
- tornado_adv
- harrier_gr7
- f_14b
- saab_jas39a
- saab_jas39c_south_africa
- saab_ja37d
22 Likes
Good luck :)
He’ll need it. This is GJN’s standard bias antics. Their source is they believe it should be this way.
3 Likes
I mean, maybe they have a source would be nice to see it tho…
BOL IR acts like a chaff packet, it creates a large cloud of pyrophoric material on ejection. If they want to reduce the effectiveness per packet they would first need to massively increase the capture area. One change without the other is an unnecessary nerf.
12 Likes
Yeah, this is something they need to communicate better on, we need to see sources rather than just hearing ‘our sources say…’
1 Like
That would be nice, in a situation where a bunch of people want it they may at least tell the name of the source
Probably a source that also says the content of BOL chaff packets is aluminium…
3 Likes
3 LONG Mental steps later and TES backplate is made from aluminium
/j
1 Like
@warhead_beast @John_Sneeeeeeeew @x_Shini I think these would be the UK buying Taurus for us so that we can donate Storm Shadow as the production lines are closed and we are relying on our limited stocks (MoD moment) ahead of the new naval anti-ship missile due in 2028.
Not sure why they wouldn’t just divert funding to speeding up FSP of the new one in that case though.
Yeah, that is most likely what will happen.
We shall see what happens with it, kinda pathetic that we have to rely on a Cruise Missile of a foreign nation which directly rivals our own because the MoD don’t understand forward planning and timescales.
I think they announced that they have accelerated it: Subsonic land-attack missile ISD hopefully for 2028 - anti-ship and supersonic parts of the project going on the backburner
1 Like
Yeah its 2028 now and not 2030 something but thats still like 4 years for the land attack version.
My laymans mind cannot comprehend how a project takes literally 20 years to field a missile which uses technologies we had in the 2010’s. Like they aren’t even sure its going to be supersonic anymore, how can you not know your basic requirement when there are nations utilising right now, hypersonic missiles.
The missiles are all the same thing, so its not dependence on Germany, more the fact Germany refuses to send theirs so we buy it, probably for very cheap then send ours more freely