Another bug report from me:
3 Likes
and here’s my first ever, hope it’s well received
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/h08d3AS2KZEG
3 Likes
So quick note on that rocket sight, it is very much so not accurate and up till just recently was just flat out broken.
It works with APKWS because they are laser guided, if you disable the laser the rockets have a very hard time being even remotely close to their target and they have Hydra 70 disperison which is better than FFARs by a wide margin.
Edit : Just took out the 10C again to grind for the XL, yeah its still pretty much fully broken, if you select a TGP target your normal CCIP reticle just gets stuck on a random part of the map and does not work at all while this reticle only shows up at around sub 1 mile and is frankly not really useful at all.
1 Like
in the case of F-102, probably a good thing
it fires all 24 at once, and any single one is enough to kill, a larger spread will give a higher PK
True, although as I just tossed into my edit, this rocket guidance function on the 10C is still very broken and near unusable as it is currently.
All 24 at once? It should fire 12 at a time, there are only 12 launch lubes in the first place and the rockets are placed in tandem inside them.
It the radar guided sight is broken, then all the more reason why implementing a pseudo gunsight for rockets should be much easier since you don’t have to take into account the movement of the target, just the rocket ballistics and the turn rate.
Honestly i’m still not sure on that one, sure the early version of the mg-10 only had the ability to select those ranges, but i suspect that during service the system got upgraded with more features; just for example note that this early version didn’t have irst yet.
I’m 99% sure it never got boresight/ACM mode either, given i’ve never seen it described.
I agree. Forcing a player to start the grind in a non foldered tech tree plane with only two air to air missiles and no other possible armament is also pretty irresponsible, to say it midly.
At the very least I would have the player start with 6 aim-4c’s and the rockets by default (giving air and ground attack options to start with), progressively unlocking the AIM-4a’s → gunpods → Aim-4d’s → Aim-26b’s as the plane is spaded.
I was looking for hard evidence for firing 12 at a time with @Nostalgistic in the WT-USA discord, but we came up short, though he did find a secondary i believe
I’d think it’d be better with it 2nd in the folder with a F-106A post 1972, but without the HMS
I still don’t think AIM-26B is a good idea, it’s going to drag this thing way above where the airframe is usable
Its unusable as is with just Falcons and a 7,62mm minigun if it gets that. Needs AIM-26B to even be relevant, and with only two of them its limited to hunting unawares high flyers afterwhich it’ll just be LARPing around the battlefield hoping the AIM-4s do anything.
isn’t the aim-26b on the new J-35 and added to the premium J-35XS? if that is the same missile, it is not so much better to move the F-102 up in BR any amount.
yep, AIM-26B is on the Mirage IIIS, J35J, and J35XS right now (as RB27)
However RB27 is configured incorrectly (gaijin copy and pasted it wrong)
a missile bus at 8.7 (no M134) or 9.0 (M134) would be fun
AIM-26B probably wont move it up too far, as you sacrifice 2x AIM-4 for it, and judging by F-106A, you can get a good number of kills with the AIM-4 suprisingly
Sacrificing three* AIM-4 Falcons for one AIM-26B in weapons bay.
You sacrifice all AIM-4 Falcons for two AIM-26Bs in the bay.
This is why I still vote for stock proximity fused rockets.
Makes the vehicle genuinely unique combat wise since the only other aircraft with such a combat style is the F-89D, while not compromising it’s actually underlying design and makes it somewhat viable stock.
oh dear…
Nostalgistic pointed out to me a very valid point
If F-102A got Proximity FFARs, they would likely fuze on eachother, both in game and IRL, therefore its unlikely they are compatible, unless we can determine there is a lesser firing ripple quantity
Whil its not anacronistic for the fuze type (unlike F-89D), its not exactly possible for them to be used on F-102
FFARs themselves should be stock, but i’d think it’d be better if we got some form of rocket A2A CCRP symbology for them, to allow a kill on straight flying aircraft
That or just add the SUU-11
Does not occur with the F-89D so such is not a issue.
Once again the self fusing issue is not a thing and there is nothing stopping a player from being forced to single fire them.
This does not solve the issue of usability as it is and will nominally never be used.
gaijin has probably tuned its proximity to ignore itself, while IRL this would be impossible,
Not to mention there isnt evidence of F-102 carrying the Proximity fuzed rockets, so it cant get them, even if we assume theres no issues firing them IRL,
the fact the F-102 physically cannot fire sequentially is
It fires all loaded rockets at once, this is the case IRL
Its almost as if they’re anti bomber and not anti fighter weapons. F-102A was designed as an interceptor, not a fighter
A CCRP to greatly help aim them would atleast make them useable, and not meme weapons
at 9.0, you’ll often see Il-28 and Canberras, and the occasional Tu-95M and B-52 (if USA v USA) which would be the primary targets for these, even Yak-28 and Vautour, Theres also the normal clueless AFK climber that you see time to time
I have voiced my support for the SUU-11 gunpods, which would actually work properly against fighters, even if time on target needs to be a fairly long time. it should get the pods stock to make up for the severe shortfall of the AIM-4s performance
I am aware.
Neither is there for the F-89D, as said this is a gameplay concession.
The F8U-2 also cannot fire beyond a salvo IRL, yet, in game it can modify it’s ripple quantity.
Such is once again done for gameplay.
As was the F-89D’s entire weapon system, yet, once again, a gameplay concession was made to the benefit of the aircraft in that situation.
I still highly doubt such will be viable at all.
You are still relying on passive players to be relevant and a grand majority of players at 9.0 are still going to be in fighters, and in uptiers such is even moreso the case.
My issue with such is that said pods are a unusual modification made to the aircraft, tweaking the already existing rocket systems onboard play into the actual design of the aircraft far more.
