I’m not even talking specifically about that issue. I see far too many people being worked up from some minor cosmetic details that don’t even affect gameplay.
Now imagine this being done on dozens of vehicles in the game, of course you’ll flood the bug reporting system with garbage reports that benefit no one.
Ooookay another “bit” of MAW testing.
First of all, thanks to @WereCat888 for launching the missiles at me. Much appreciated.
TL;DR at the start because TL;DRs at the end suck:
BVR missiles (e.g 120, r27) detected at ~11km
WVR missiles (9M, r73) detected at ~7km
This lines up with the MAW radars being set to 1m^2 at 20km, BVR missiles having RCS of 0.1, and WVR approximately 0.01.
There are two errors in detection:
1 is a lack of closure rate. The MAW will fail to identify missiles if launched sufficiently close in tail aspect. I believe this is reasonable and requires no change.
2 is incorrect prediction: if the missile is launched mid-turn, the MAW seems to believe that it will not hit, as its path does not intersect, and does not provide a warning until the turn is finished.
And a quick footnote before I get to the annoying data, the radar MAW appears to not trigger automatic countermeasures, requiring me to manually countermeasure even if CM slaving to MAW is enabled. Interestingly also, MAW data is not presented in replays, requiring me to write down detection times in chat.
Now to the long bit with all the data.
Launch #1: R-27ET, front aspect. Distance: 9.1km
Launch #2: R-27ET, side aspect. Distance: 10.9km
Missile detected at 8.5km.
Launch #3: R-27ET, rear aspect. Distance: 6.8km
Missile detected roughly one second after launch.
Launch #4: R-27ET, side/rear aspect. Distance: 9.8km
Missile detected on launch, temporarily lost, and detected again at 7km.
Launch #5: R-27ER, front aspect. Distance: 39.6km
Launch #6: R-73E, side aspect. Distance: 5.5km
Launch #7: R-73E, rear aspect. Distance: 1.9km
Launch #8: R-27ER, side aspect. Distance: 9.4km
Launch #9: R-73E, rear aspect. Distance: 3km
Launch #10: R-73E, rear aspect. Distance: 7.6km
Launch #11: AIM-120B, front/side aspect. Distance: 24.8km
Launch #12: AIM-9M, rear aspect. Distance: 4.9km
Launch #13: AIM-9M, side aspect during evasion. Distance: 4.5km
Launch #14: AIM-120B, front aspect. Distance: 19.9km
Launch #15: AIM-9M, rear aspect. Distance: 3.2km
Launch #16: AIM-9M, rear aspect. Distance: 2.9km
So does anyone know if there are radar changes to the Captor, which is still utterly useless at range?
There appear to be changes, but they’ve managed to make it worse lol
Ohh good! Just what was needed!
Yeah, feels worse on the Dev than on live, but im just hoping that is an indicator that its being worked on and we’ve only got access to part of the new code
That is a good point. It shows they are atleast working on it.
Good take, that has raised my spirit, thanks
well tbh if they aren’t competent enough to make CAPTOR M good just put CAPTOR E and be done with it
What makes you think they would be able to create an accurate captor E if the M model is making them struggle this hard
at least i get AESA not broken captor M
By the way…
Not sure if this counts for anything.
We already have that in game
Oh are those sidewinder rails?
Yes
Amraams can be theoretically mounted but theres never been any pictures of that being the case
I imagine gaijin is trying to play it semi-safe. They’ve already made a huge technological overstep with the FGR.4 and are now playing catch-up to try to fix it. I only somewhat blame them for releasing it too early, but I can see why it is taking so long to actually find solutions to these issues which can be reliably backed by sources. Especially when systems like praetorian MWS and the CAPTOR require entirely new frameworks for operation.
The aircraft we currently have is technologically decades ahead of basically everybody until g5 jets start coming in. No other way about it really. We’re using weapons that are absurdly old for the airframe simply to keep some semblance of balance.
We cannot get CAPTOR-E because that means gaijin:
In the case of the Su-30, it must be proven that it cannot be mounted. In the case of the Eurofighter, it must be proven that it can be mounted.
Had the same argument with gaijin over the 25SM3. Kh-38 isn’t even listed in the manual and yet it’s a matter of definitively proving it can’t have it.
Trust me, not worth stressing over.
General question. Where’s AMRAAM? Now there’s literally 0 excuse not to add it…
