Fixed ty
I will say from personal experience using both the Aussie hornet (with APG-73!!!) and the CAPTOR, CAPTOR works like a genuine dream. Like using the hornet and feeling like a eurofighter back when TWS+ was first introduced hit me like a freight train. I would definitely rate CAPTOR above most if not all M-scans in its current state.
okay thanks for clarification
1 Like
EL/M-2052 is the second best radar in-game if we’re considering all airborne radars imo
I’ll have to take a look and update the spreadsheet I s’pose -_-
CAPTOR-M is a lot better at close range radar usage, particularly for single target engagements now since the scan zone changes, but it gave up a lot of its situational awareness, BVR, and multi-target engagement capabilities for it imo, which is why I rate it so low still. Its definitly vastly improved over its previous state, particularly for the air RB meta, but I’d argue radars are sort of non-factors in arcade++ due to multiple factors.
That’s my personal opinion though.
2 Likes
That’s really regrettable… So much potential, wasted…
1 Like
Its pretty obvious the game was built with WW2 props in mind and every addition since has just been overlapping layers of bodge jobs and patches. Just look at how they model IR signatures. Works fine for Aim-9Bs, terrible for anything added since
1 Like
We really need a year of no updates and a full code rewrite… That’s what 2.0 was supposed to be in my mind.
Yep. They really do need to start again
IIRC, the numbers that were in the estimates column for the ESR-D doc were also with 82kN engines, not the 90kN engines (derated for increased engine life, 95kN if they remove the limiter currently being used during peace time), so its not exactly like the jet didnt gain any thrust with the increase in weight. More notably, future docs did state the EFT met or exceeded the ESR-D requirements, which would suggest the estimates seen on the ESR-D doc were conservative and not representative of the final product (hence them being estimates…)
@Flame2512 or @Gunjob would know more details though, I’m just restating what I remember from what was said back when this was initially discussed.
2 Likes
You are conflating different documents.
The ESR-D document basically says “whatever the mass ends up being It needs to meet these performance requirements”.
The MOD(PE) performance estimates basically say “assuming an empty mass of 10,570 kg, an engine static thrust of 82.1 kN, and an unfinished aerodynamic design we think it will have the following performance”.
So it is to be expected that the MOD(PE) estimates would be exceeded by the finished aircraft. And the evidence that is available strongly suggests the ESR-D requirements (which are mass independent) were met by the finished aircraft.
So yes, you would expect the performance requirements in the esrd to be met in game (which currently some of them are not).
8 Likes
Aight that makes sense, I was like there’s no way gaijin doesn’t see this discrepancy right? Good to hear that it was correct in the way gaijin modeld it
When are they going to fix the Eurofighter with smokeless engines, even when using afterburner?
Spoiler
2 Likes
I bet you, as every plane in the game has the same smoke-trail, that they programmed this stuff statically and not dynamically/configurable. So they would have to change this whole mechanic and they’re way too lazy for that.
So they’re not changing it because of the brilliantly efficient code structure? Fantastic.
Having total MAW failure while fighting sparrows on a night naval map. Don’t know if it’s the night or naval part doing it but it’s straight up not detecting the threat.
Might also be the clouds, but it shouldn’t be…
Might be the deadzone, you shouldve been fine at that angle, but maybe it was just barely inside the deadzone?
Radar is angled down about 10 degrees
And the missile is above the radar centre point.
Zero chance that’s in deadzone.
I have a few more clips from the same engagement but I’ve shut my PC off for today now so I can’t pull them up :(