Cool, report got accepted as well :)
Also I guess there’s no problem with using the AV-8B tacman afterall…? I will be a little sad though if it becomes “not a bug” in the coming days with a response like “weapons delivery manual of F-xx (and F-xx no.2) states that Mav 65D/G have 30-15° fov”. I hope the developers recognize that those values are likely typos that persisted, especially when there’s 0 mention of the IIR Mav FoVs in text form (whereas they do explicitly mention those of the 65A and B). The fact it’s just a factor of 10 difference makes it just so probable that they forgot a decimal point.
1 Like
Bug report:
Lantirn TGP angular limits:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/4TBNnByBG63x
Spoiler
Yeah, well the AF magazine does mention this quote:
Should also be a roll stabilized image
1 Like
I think most pods should be (Litening for example)
Not sure why they don’t spend the time to implement it, given how annoying it is … Like how difficult would it be to just rotate the image and keep the sky up …
1 Like
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.
I asked a senior tech mod and I was told it’s good to use
Surprised they haven’t been retired yet. I guess they are waiting for EX production to pick up
Don’t get me wrong I love F-15C but when I see an F-15 serial that starts with anything below 86 all I can think of is the grandma worm from Spongebob
Nice to see the F-15C “Sandman” with the 114th Fighter Squadron from Kinsley Field
(unlockable in-game skin) make an appearance in this cool video:
3 Likes
They need to let them retire, that thing was ordered in 1978 (or production was started on it that year) if I understand USAF serials
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…
1 Like
💀
The biggest update of the year and everybody gets the middle finger. Especially the U.S
Comanche pack premium
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
I agree.
New mechanics and bug fixes are very nice but if other nations get those spaa’s why can’t the rest of them get them?
@sudo_su1
Looks like they went with the real FoV (over real magnification), so huge zoom as predicted.
I hope these won’t be the only Maverick changes though.
2 Likes
Everything else is also adjusted based on FoV values so it makes sense for the sake of consistency …
1 Like
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.
how do you find channel loss just curious like how do we know its accurate how much channel loss there is ?
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.
what about F-111B with phoenixes (at lower br than f14a)
