@Macron-Spokesman looks like the missile already correctly waits until it is at low altitude to fire its motor.
7 Likes
Yes it does, the report was reconfigured to time rather than mechanic. At 27,000 feet, the Exocet should only turn on the motor after one minute.
3.2s on video so honestly it’s close enough right now in that regard
Rafale should not have GMTI radar mode // Gaijin.net // Issues
TWS SEA mode should be able to pick up ground targets // Gaijin.net // Issues
3 Likes
Hopefully we see that, are you planning to report the diameter or should I? Suspect mica will have to take a drag nerf to balance the better motor (hopefully)
go for it if you’d like to report the diameter, the 165mm source was already said to be a restricted source. I don’t know of anything else that states 165mm.
What is the difference with tws gmti then both in game and irl, am i not understanding things or ?
Good question, both the PESA and early AESA radar from the very beginning had air to surface modes that could detect and track sea and ground targets even though neither had GMTI.
Irl I’m not sure what the difference is with GMTI or what it is supposed to add, I suppose that is up to the developers to do their research on. In-game though, the TWS SEA mode should become like TWS GMTI where it detects and tracks both sea and ground targets, and then developers will have to do their work in finding out what benefit they should model into the GMTI to make it worth it.
What’s funny is, the current MICA with increased topspeed but slightly higher drag to meet overall range would be better than what we have now which is a MICA that is worse at medium ranges than the live MICA.
I did my research, as it is right now, the dev MICA has the relatively worst gained BVR capabilities compared to the other fox-3s. Fixing the top-speed even at the cost of some drag would make the MICA more useful in the 15-30km ranges at high altitude.
At 10km altitude, Mach 1.2 co-alt and co-speed, 30km range, the live-server MICA beats the dev-server MICA in time-to-target. In every other situation the dev-server MICA is better (closer range, long range, turning performance), we just need the medium range performance fixed.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/zaKwSSJCERRj
Yup, it would certainly make it more spicy, especially at closer/medium ranges.
Good luck with that report tbh cause how do you prove it’s 165mm and not 161mm or 162mm? Atleast in the eyes of Gaijin. You and I both know it should be 165mm, but what is that report going to prove to them?
IIRC it relies on SAR imagery, while GMTI uses doppler analysis.
I read about it some time ago, but I might be mixing stuff up.
2 Likes
I believe you’re right about that, but the game doesn’t model the disadvantages/advantages of each method do they?
Fair point, but i dont think 1 or 2 mm would be visisible to any eye or camera, so it must be small but not inconsequential.
Game straight up does not model SAR.
We have GMTI for moving stuff for planes, and there are SEA for planes and A-G for helis. While SEA can rely on the fact ship stand out in radar, A-G is a mode that just shows all ground vehicles, not sure on what it would rely if it were to be an irl system. Probably on higher bands ability to distinguish unnatural radar returns, and attributing it to targets, but in game lilited to only vehicles, not other stuff.
Had a brainwave, i can prove its >160mm, they will need to either accept it or guess themselves what the motor diameter is. (Added a new sentence to the report)
GMTI iirc in-game detects all ground and ship targets, moving or not. It also detects ships with the same quality as that of the SEA mode, with no differences as far as I can tell.
Things need to move from GMTI to detect them, but it does not care what is the moving thing.
Devil’s advocate here, but could the devs not assume that 160mm is actually for the outer motor casing and the rest of the external diameter is <160mm ?
That wouldn’t explain the seeker being 160mm. Thus the motor must be >