Hmm… seems to be resolveded, so might have just been fixed already or just one of those post update glitchyness. But defiently had to switch the radar off to use even CCRP to deliver unguided weapons a few days after the update had dropped.
(at least based upon a test flight, could also be a server side issue)
But yeah, CCRP is stupidly dated at the moment
PS 2
The way I went with my stock grind on the german EF was MAW > New Boosters > Airframe > AIM-9M > AIM-120B > Wings repair > Cover > Engine > Compressor > G-Suit and then the rest, I took the AIM-120C-5s last because you can get two of them stock and I only use two of them anyways, I just fly high, shoot my 120C-5s, then guide the missiles through data-link while cranking, and if there are missiles incoming, I just turn cold and go low. I do guide my missiles through datalink till impact if possible while cranking.
There is!
There’s a third keybind that cycles your SPI through the enemy base locations, which is really useful when base bombing.
One would argue this counts as manually? setting the point ahah, but fair enough. Does it do anything in games with no bases (ie, ground battles)
No, not at the moment, it was the old method for targeting bases reliably in gamemodes list ASB, where pointing your nose at the target to set a CCRP point wasnt necessarily the most convenient. Especially if you were using CCRP to help locate the base in the first place. The Map target needs some TLC, but has largely replaced it for most aircraft, especially as its not dependent on a functional HUD with CCRP symbology.
But there is a suggestion for it
in sim it actually sets it to airfields iirc but otherwise no
Yeah, its the only effective way to target AF sub-systems at longer ranges
Can anyone give me an idea of when they felt AIM-9M started having tracking issues?
If you have old examples thats helpful.
September/November updates maybe? But definetly gone into overdrive since the December major update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkJu-nb_xiE
https://youtu.be/BRxOGro8yZQ
https://youtu.be/3LdFFtV1sTE
The moment they changed the IRCCM. It was fixed time before, now it’s “if flare inside FoV”. Either “Leviathans” or “Tusk Force”. In any case it was changed in a major update, not a small patch.
Which is how it worked IRL. That’s not to say Gaijin have implemented it correctly / well though.
I never said that was bad/wrong or not how it is IRL. Just meant, that the problem appeared with this implementation :)
Should it work similar to Stinger/Mistral? Because I’ve had 9Ms be flared by Heli’s that died to a Mistral while dropping the same amount of flares
Stinger/Mistral have the dual IRCCM of R-73 and 9M, so they’re already barely seeing flares to begin with and they have the IOG push-ahead to counter the few flares they do see.
The MAW still doesn’t know how to respond to SARH… has gaijin forgot they even added this feature?
R-27ER is an SARH.
R-27ET looks like an R-27ER but is defeated by flares not chaff.
Therefore all SARH missiles require flares not Chaff.
Gaijin logic 101 :P
MAWS still responds to ARHs with flares as well.
I also noticed that when being fired at from an aim9X the rwr goes off, but not a single flare is activated from MAWS.
I don’t get why they see the need to overcomplicate it and make the entire system broken by trying to use some abhorrent angle matching. Just make the MAW immediately know, the result is more realistic anyways.