No, we need more planes to bridge the gaps in performance, as the max BR is too low, and we need more competitor planes
Just nerfing both is making it worse for them in the future
It should be about accuracy.
4 Likes
Starts looking once it is at the altitude of 1.5km above the target rather than distance is my understanding
? The M2K is already amazing.
Yes. Both the planes are overperforming vs their IRL counterparts.
Every plane in game is overperforming.
5 Likes
But isn’t AASM’s terminal approach to the target meant to be near vertical (meaning altitude and distance to target are practically the same)? I thought that was one of the selling points?
Also, I’m pretty sure one of the sources says “1,500 m from the target”, or words to that effect.
1 Like
Devs didn’t account for this in the game due to PID, if you fire at ranges farther than 20 km, AASM-250 will fail to pitch down and will lose lock.
1 Like
Yes and no, the angle of attack to the target seems to be adjustable but I’m not sure exactly how otherwise I would have reported it.
Rafale International Issue 16
AASM Brochure
1 Like
peak PID indeed
AASM in game is like that guy on the highway : “oops, missed the exit, let me do a U turn real quick”
10 Likes
The issue I see with my earlier assumptions is that the correction limit isn’t necessarily indicative of seeker FoV
The bomb/missile compares what it sees with the scenery (around the target) that is stored in its memory
So the limiting factor here (apart from kinematics) is how much of the scenery around the target is stored in the missile’s memory and how big a stored scenery it can handle in terms of computational power required to do the image correlation
So (again kinematics aside) theoretically you could have the scenery / terrain of the whole earth stored in the missile and drop it at any arbitrary position around the earth and have it guide to and hit any other arbitrary position around the earth (since it can find its way to the target by first figuring out where it itself is at or looking at by comparing it to the stored scenery) …
I.e. unlimited correction (for GPS/INS error) capability.
Obviously that wouldn’t mean the missile has enough FoV to see the whole earth from all directions at once …
So the whole premise of my calculation was wrong …
Im curious howd theyd handle a massive FoV AASM. Target ID would allow it to only hit ground vehicles corresponding to the same type as initially targetted and avoid destroyed tanks, but prevent a player from being able to actually target a target specifically.
This would be rather odd but broken. On thr flip side, I still think they should set the seeker track rate to 0 deg/s, making it incapable of tracking a moving target, as there still seems to be no proof the missile can hit moving targets.
Is there any evidence for TV/IR guided AGM-65s being used against moving tanks?
There is another problem.
AASM takes only 2 pictures in 2 points, it does not have a continous track. 1 used to figure out where it is, and 2 to make sure it impacts the target. It will have troubles with moving things.
1 Like
7 Likes
Yes?
We don’t know anything about that, what is certain is that it receives a first picture before the shot and that the seaker is activated in the terminal phase, whether it only takes one image or not is never specified
We only know that the bomb can more or less become inactive if it doesn’t find its target.
The real question is, once the seaker is ignited and the AASM lands on its target, does the seaker remain focused on the target or does it just take one picture to find the target?
In the first case, this would probably mean the ability to track a moving target, but in the second case, it would only update the initially given position.
