Dear developer, I have tested multipass on this server and nothing has changed compared to the live server.
I would like a concrete explanation about this.
I have been hoping for multipass to be realistic for the past few years, but due to the presence of BVRAAMs such as R27ER and AIM54, which other countries cannot compete with, I have been patient, thinking that it is a balancing act to be considered.
This major event of implementing ARH in all countries should have been a chance to bring BVR back to reality.
But it was not implemented. Is this really a game-balancing adjustment?
If this really is intended to be a game-balancing adjustment, then the statement in the FOX-3 article, “At short distances, only the 3-9 maneuver is effective.” is incorrect.
It should say “It can be neutralized by flying lower than 100 meters.”
What is the purpose of this adjustment and how long will it last?
In my opinion such specifications should be limited to unrealistic game modes like arcade battles.
I’m not good at English, so I use translation software, so I apologize if there are some sentences that are not correct.
Specifically speaking, there is no need to change the multipath itself.
We know that radar and seeker systems that use monopulses to mitigate multipath have not been modeled.
But even without such a system, if the proximity fuse can be made to work well at low altitudes, that alone should improve matters considerably.
Even today, if a missile is launched from a high altitude, there is no problem guiding it within range of the proximity fuse, but it will not explode for game reasons.
If you hit it directly, it will not explode.
This is obviously wrong and unrealistic.
I’d like the developer to clarify why.
As I said above, if it is for game balance, then it should be widely advertised that you should fly low and avoid missiles.
Nonetheless, they wrote the article as a 3-9 maneuver to avoid.
This is a one-sided disadvantage for the player who doesn’t know that flying low will allow him to avoid missiles.
You can’t say that the game is balanced in this way.
If they want to correctly model a radar system employing monopulse to overcome multipath in the right way, I think they have a convincing theory.
But even if so, that is no reason why a proximity fuse would not work at low altitudes.
I can find no justification for this method being employed at this time.
As I mentioned above, even if there are some differences, now is the time when all countries have implemented equal ARH missiles.
If balance is the reason, there is no sense in not eliminating this adjustment at this time.
If the imbalance between ARH and SARH missile-equipped aircraft is to be considered, it is a problem that will haunt some BR forever and will never be solved.
It would indicate that this game will forever be a low-flying game.
I would like to hear from the developers if they have a clear answer to this question.
To me it looks like they are trying to play a low altitude, intense dogfight kind of game, which is arcade battle territory by all accounts.
Even if we were to make such adjustments in realistic battles, we would bring such adjustments to simulator battles as well, which is incomprehensible.
If that is indeed the reason, then gaijin does not understand the meaning of the word realistic.
In addition, it is strange that the simulator battle has that specification, isn’t it?
There is no consistency, and such reasons are not the only ones that can’t be explained.
Realistic is what gaijin decides realistic is. Aircraft able to constantly pull massive amounts of Gs without damage isn’t realistic but here we are. Aircraft being able to rearm and repair in seconds isn’t realistic but here we are. Human loaders being able to load rounds a consistent pace all through out the battle without tiring isn’t realistic either. The word ‘realistic’ is simply a term to imply the gameplay is closer to reality than Arcade.
The durability of the airframe and the stamina of the crew are exaggerations of reality, because it is difficult to replicate the loads on the structure and the physical strength of the human body.
However, the current behavior of radar missiles at low altitude is completely different from reality.
It is as strange as AIM7 being guided by infrared light
Furthermore, this logic cannot take into account the combat state of the simulator.
So you say you want realism but hand wave away stuff that isn’t realistic? Seems hypocritical to me. Plus you completely avoided over half of the other easily fixed not realistic stuff I mentioned as well.
It is impossible to simulate everything in this world perfectly, so there always has to be a compromise somewhere.
Even DCS is not perfect.
But it’s not realistic to keep doing it knowing it’s something completely different, is it?
Even a DCS can reload an armament in a few dozen seconds, and you call the DCS a non-simulator because of that?
If you take your time, you can repair and reload.
Isn’t this within the realm of hyperbole?
Isn’t it completely the opposite expression that things that are supposed to explode stop exploding?
If you read back, you will see that I am not looking for a perfect simulation.
Rather, I am tolerating the absence of radar and seeker using monopulse, which is supposed to be present.
Still, I’m complaining about the proximity fuse being neutralized at low altitude, which is obviously a strange specification.
The title talks about multipath changes for the sake of clarity, but the unrealistic specification that the proximity fuse is disabled at low altitude is the problem.
Hyperbole means an exaggeration. I am not exaggerating as it is something in game currently that is done for gameplay reasons that goes against reality. Crying out that multi pathing is so unfair because reality but handwaving all other non realistic things at the same time is nonsense.
Another none realistic example is armaments that some vehicles and aircraft are equipped with in game but irl never had. An example is the east german Mig-29 getting the R-27ER1 something it never carried irl.
I have no clue what this even means.
Oh no you misunderstand me. I am just saying that previously when you used the ‘but it isn’t realistic card’ that is a bad excuse. This argument has spiraled so far off the main topic so I think I’ll quit this argument. I am not arguing in favor of or against multi pathing, I am simply stating that using reality as an excuse for something not or being in game is a bad one.