its a SAL atgm missle, whatever u do its wont be as busted as the russian ones with incredible range.
brimstone 2s still could easily be added without problems
Do we have data for that? If not, they wont touch it.
No because its nonsense, the speed is 70Deg/s.
4 x 140 in 8 seconds is 70deg/s
Another one 4x140 in 8 seconds is 70 deg/s
It is only capable of a “faster” scan in Data Adaptive mode where in it can “jump” to a target briefly at a higher speed.
5 Likes
Well, due to bug, its doing 4x60 in 8+ seconds…
Its around 65°/s ingame i think.
not really a reason to complain, it was artifically nerfed for a good reason, and i quite frankly think its way too early to add it cuz a lot of spaa’s cant counter this missile, but honestly its not that far away from the russian KH-38 ML, except that the Brimstone has the advantage of it being more versatile due to the way it can be launched, and the KH-38 ML has range and speed advantage, also little correction a lot of people did complain aobut the Brimstones due to the gps guidance and loft capacities
1 Like
It is 65deg/s in game right now, I’ve reported it, thanks to the stuff @Flame2512 found above.
4 Likes
And the bug of reapeating top/bottom bar and repeating pattern backwards on all radars? Is there any progress with this one? Because if anything, THIS is causing issues, not lacking poor 5°/s.
1 Like
I nudged a dev on it but I’ve not had an update.
2 Likes
It’s saying “a mechanical scanning system”, so it’s completly unclear if the CAPTOR-M is used as reference here. It’s more likely that the predessors of the entire CAPTOR-Family (APG-65, Sea Vixen, etc.) are used as reference here.
Its comparing CAPTOR E and M.
1 Like
SAL is busted? LOL what fnf KH-38 are fair and balance? but SAL brimstone is busted? lol don’t make me laugh.
2 Likes
Article was written in 2018. It’s still with Airbus, and still wearing the Airbus 60 year anniversary paint job in 2024.
It will probably continue to be operated by Airbus for a few more years now P4E has been contracted
1 Like
What is the source for that?
And that’s from?
We don’t accept such reports currently, so whilst there will always be some low quality reports, they are not in the majority. What you proposed (to start accepting reports that don’t provide any values of any meaning and just use the words “better” or “improved” with no specific detail as to the what, how or by how much) would simply generate a near endless amount of reports that would allow people to try “buffing” or equally “nerfing” aircraft based on no factual detail at all.
Simply because of the fact that some quality reports are attempted now, does not mean its viable to accept 10-20x that amount and is a very strange reasoning to try to justify.
We have a baseline minimum standard that allows for some leeway and allows people to submit two secondary sources as suggestions for modern vehicles already.
5 Likes
You don’t want to know)
Sekrit dokumentz
1 Like
I kinda do
7 Likes
Actually we do. As if you cannot provide a unrestricted / declassified legal source for where it comes from, your post will be removed and you banned for posting material that does not meet the clear guidelines: Source Material: Restrictions on Classified and Export Restricted information (“Military Restrictions”)
4 Likes
Unrelated to your question but i heard you like to nudge devs
I made a bug report on the Radar Gunsight not working in the HUD
and some other odd stuff I observed while playing simulator.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WYDSrC24X8sY