Probably more difficult in the way they have implemented it currently. What they can do to significanlty improve on this is to adjust the sideways angles. Currently limited to 90° to the left/right. If they simply up it to the same angle as the depression angle (as simulating a 90° roll), the image will stay upright for a larger sector. Only the Damocles has this modelled right now, but I can’t say for sure it works like I described. It seems to at least be considerable better at keeping a lase at least because of the larger coverage.
That’s true, so I do hope this change goes through. Definitely makes more sense as well as helping out some planes, in particular incredibly helpful for the otherwise fairly sad F-4F KWS. With the change, it can at least see. The A-10A Late and Kurnass 2000 might become too strong after this change however… The KWS and Kurnass 2000 are both also a bit weird, the KWS gets like gen 1.5 thermals on the Mavs and the Kurnass 2000 gets gen 2. Not sure why this is, but more such inconsistencies exist.
Also just because the document is unclassified doesn’t necessarily mean it’s useable. At least I was told to be careful and not use it (for now) as the front does say this:
But the document is pretty old now, 23 years. It’s also not export restricted (those warnings look different), so I suppose it’s semi fine. I think the (unwritten) rule was to wait 30 years or something however.
Seems that (all) the AGM-65 reports will be implemented next major, hopefully. So all in all, this would be:
FoV fixes for the IIR Mavericks (up to 3x more zoom or up to 10x more, depending on how they implement it)
Rocket engine fix (~+15% total impulse) for all Mavericks
Drag fixes (lowering of drag) for all Mavericks
Laser Maverick seeker range increase (by roughly at least 3-4km)
Laser Maverick trackrate (from 8 to 12°/s)
PBX warhead Maverick (less explosive mass, but slighlty different explosive, TNTe probably won’t change)
Idk if I missed some. Tracking rate of IIR Mavericks can be reported as well, but I will first have to see if I can use the documents I have on it. I also wonder what those changes to the Kh-38/29 will be…
Usually I end up being more excited about the bug fixes and new additions/changes to old stuff than the new stuff anyway. But if the US (and UK, France, Italy) end up not getting some new toptier SPAA, I will actually be pretty sad. The list isn’t final so there’s definitely still a good chance.
That’s mostly true and fair I suppose, but I think, or at least I remember somewhere, that zoom/magnification values are preferred over FoV. I believe the AN/AXX-1 is the only airborne sight with real magnification modelled over FoV (at 4-10x). Pretty much all ground vehicles have actual zoom modelled.
I wonder if they are going to change the thermal quality on the F-4F KWS and Kurnass 2k now though. Pretty funny if not, because the Kurnass 2k would be running around with essentially a Litening II pod then with its gen 2 thermals on the Mavs.
To know exact channel loss you need documents.
Most NATO jets have installed thrust amounts at mach 0.9 in unclassified and unrestricted documents, so most of the time knowing exact channel loss isn’t necessary.
Goes to show you that FoV is not a good indicator of magnification (same as zoom in-game). In-game with real FoV, TCS would have 52-168x zoom. But irl it has lower magnification than the AGM-65D despite smaller FoV.
Because I can’t understand how projecting 1.42 deg on a display results in 4x magnification while projecting 1.5 deg on a display that’s around the same size results in 16x magnification.
