Do you think the multipath clutter mechanism is overly simplistic and crude?

In the game, the multipath clutter mechanism is unconditionally effective within 50 meters. Except for vertical angles, it can almost completely jam the radar seeker. In the game, for area air defense systems using radar seekers, aircraft can essentially avoid being shot down as long as they maintain a low-altitude flight path. Especially in maps where most of the terrain is flat plains outside the combat zones (like in certain small towns or deserts), these air defense systems are virtually powerless against such aircraft. You might even see the aircraft heading straight toward you, yet all the missiles you launch end up crashing into the ground right next to the aircraft. If anti-radiation weapons are introduced in the future, this situation will only become even more severe.

Why doesn’t Gaijin try to improve this mechanic? In DCS, the multipath clutter effect is minimal and only increases during maneuvers like the “39” maneuver. Perhaps Gaijin could improve their system based on this concept—for instance, making multipath clutter nearly ineffective from the front, but gradually increasing during turns. This design would encourage pilots to act more cautiously after their RWR alerts, rather than mindlessly flying low-altitude—since they’d know it isn’t completely foolproof. Moreover, with such adjustments, distinctions can be made in the anti-clutter performance of different radar seekers. For instance, missiles with poorer performance could be designed to be less susceptible to clutter interference.

Of course, for balance, area air defense systems should also be adjusted accordingly. For example, after respawning, they could require a certain amount of time before the launcher vehicle is deployed, or the time for stowing and deploying the launcher could be extended, making each movement come at a certain cost. Players would need to deploy their air defense systems early to achieve the best suppressive effect, rather than having a system instantly respawn, deploy within seconds, and shoot down an aircraft right after being destroyed.

1 Like

It needs to be set to an IRL level per missiles.

So for some that is 0, others that might be more like 30-40m

7 Likes

Its very simplistic.

realistically it should vary between radars with some more modern PD radars basically have a zero m multipath

It would destroy air RB honestly. i think it would be best to make it 20-30m instead of the very forgiving 50m

Perhaps, the game can handle it being set on a missile by missile basis anyway, it already is, just everything is set to 60m.

For SAMs vs Helis, it needs to be set to 0m as would be accurate.

For aircraft… 20-40m would be fine for now, but if the data is available…

For helis the rotors should light PD radars up like an expensive christmas tree, but in game they just vanish.

0m for helis and a obtainable one over sea but really hard over trees for planes would be a good mix of gameplay quality and realism

1 Like

If MP can’t be relied on irl, then what is does irl? If Gajin could better mirror irl evasive manuevrers, then I doubt losing MP would destroy air battles.

1 Like

nah, at subtop tier there’re still lots of aircraft have no decent rwr (4-directions, lets say), and have difficult notching, like very common mirage f1c-200. MP provides a way to counter pulse doppler SARH msl carriers.

2 Likes

There’s still planes with no or extremely basic RWRs I il 11.0 it would make them unusable

My take is that however realistic BVR meta might actually be - it’s extremely boring and heavily depends on your carrier plane capabilities.
IR meta was the most fun I had in this game and no, I wasn’t playing grippen. Multipathing is fine as is, because it accouts for a “strange” map design. However what should happen in my opinion is that all missiles should lose their ability to explode upon hitting earth.

Then only give advanced missiles anti-multipath capabilities, or only missiles from area defense systems should have them

Perhaps we don’t necessarily need to implement a fully realistic air combat mode. Instead, we could enhance area defense systems to prevent them from appearing as nothing more than dangerous fireworks in plain terrain maps.

what counts as advanced tho?

a Fox 1 from a really good radar will be much harder to defeat than a trash Fox 3

Then only give Fox-3 resistance to multipath effects.

still doesnt really make sense when this is entireley dependant on radar capability. there will be instances where a Fox 3 will be worse off because of the radar strength

In fact, we don’t need to adhere rigidly to a design like the “50m safe zone.” Why not find a compromise where multipath effects are weakest when aircraft are flying toward each other, and gradually strengthen during maneuvers such as a 39 turn? The anti-multipath capability of missiles would only slow down the rate at which these effects intensify, meaning missiles with better anti-multipath performance would require a sharper off-angle movement to generate sufficient multipath clutter.

guess having Mpath being stronger at a longer range would be ok

irl doesn’t see 16v16 Air superiority knife fights as we do in game

so the meta in game cannot reflect IRL combat

I am for lovering the multipath height as long as gaijin makes trees normal size and not worlds tallest tree all over the map

1 Like