Thats the reason for the whole debate.
We have sources that state the Seeker of the IR missle only activated 1.5km from the target point.
So the whole missle is massively wrongly implemented
Has it been reported?
yes.
As of right now would propably act like a worse penguin missle
If those newer results wont even turn it worse,
Since its likely not meaned for moving targets at all, but for stationary targets and adjusts for gps mistakes and or jamming
Care to share a link?
no link, internaly done, straight to the devs
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
So make it 81m :)))))
1 Like
I’m all for realism but have to say I don’t love the energy being used by both sides to keep trying to nerf weapon systems and airframe. If this change goes through the Rafale ends up with as poor CAS options as Typhoon.
Leaving the domination of the Rusfed to continue.
1 Like
What’s really funny, most of the sources used to report the AASM were provided by the French dude in his attempts to nerf the Brimstone, would be rude to not make use of them
4 Likes
Its not exactly like the laser AASM are bad…
The outlier once this bug report goes through is the Kh-38MT, and I’m starting to have a sneaking suspicion its IIR seeker is similar in function to the AASM IR tbh (beyond the fact its never even been used in combat)
Im about 60-70% sure of that, but I havent found a smoking gun like what would be needed to get gaijin to make it a more reasonable PGM ingame.
8 Likes
To be clear, not saying there’s anything wrong with this.
Competition helps in improving the game.
Meanwhile …
6 Likes
Since Gaijin doesn’t seem to want LOAL outside of laser weapons, either they already know about the working of the AASM and decided it would be like that for the sake of balance, or they didn’t and it’ll get slapped with an ackowledged but not actioned upon for the state of balance.
If these changes were to go through, they’d become pretty memetastic as far as air goes for striking airfields…
The report likely has a good chance of being rejected due to gaming convention on the grounds that the difference between Contrast and Correlation Seekers is not currently modeled (was removed shortly after implementation).
Early US Designed Electro Optical seekers should not be able to lock onto the ground.
Here is Developers answer
“Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.”
Therefore, this issue is considered resolved
Even though Gaijin themselves have acknowledged that they understand the difference.
I really don’t see how both statements can be true simultaneously.
1 Like
The Penguin missile is modelled as IIR with LOAL in game.
Vehicles that have moved and are standing still again or moving targets?
There is also a separate issue of Positional error correction for the missile (upon entry into the terminal phase) to realign projected point of impact and the target point, and adjusting the point of aim to correct for pointing error being two separate things as the scene observed by the seeker will be different in each scenario for a positional error, or a target that has moved.
To my knowledge all IIR/EO weapons feature
"boundaryTrack": true
To employ a boundary tracking weapon you need only fire at a “point” target, once the weapon reaches its tracking range it will track whatever it finds at the “point” location.
Example with AGM-65G
Still makes me question why brimstones aren possible when they said LOAL is one of their biggest concerns
1 Like
I’d ignore everything they said except for the ability to track througu smoke. Everything else just felt like making an excuse to try and strengthen their justification but was largely just irrelevant nonsense