All of the issues should be reviewed but with the dev server ending soon I doubt at this rate they will be able to review and implement each one.
They for sure reviewed it, they already accepted lesser known bug reports on the pobit. They’re probably silent as they’re prob debating if giving two more aim120C i mean D would be too op.
1 Like
There is just no way they think 6 AIM-120s plus PIDS+ pylon is OP just look at other aircraft in game. I do agree though that they have probably seen it as it’s been near the top of the hot issues list for a bit.
6 Likes
Is PIDS+ certificated to carry JSOW and 2*JSOW?
Still nothing on this bug report lol.
I have a feeling PIDS will remain beyond useless in WT even after this update.
2 Likes
Love this. Thanks for the update.
Any chance for the baseline AGM-154A, or -154C this update?
-158 Is waiting in the wings, for when this flops, I’m sure.
or GBU-15
i hope one day we’ll get a game mode to actually use all of these really cool super long range munitions.
Hopefully we get the C variant, it’s actually the one used for the model since it has the IR camera on the front.
But doubtful for the A variant since it’s a glide cluster bomb which Gaijin has denied due to performance issues.
I have a feeling the issue is the lack of explosive mass in the warhead for the -C since it’s a SAP charge not a GPHE design the Fill ratio isn’t great due to requiring significant penetration and only being subsonic.
But it’s got a a similar submunition to the TOW-2B, and we’ve seen how they’re modeled so it won’t actually do anything.
If you meant the other kind of performance they could simply to the same thing as they do for IIR seekers to pick a random module and do damage from above. and the chance of rolling a hit; can be based of the apparent area of the tank, over the total dispersal area it doesn’t need to be physically modeled.
1 Like
The PIDS report has now been closed, not a bug of course.
Somewhat disappointing, but it provides the obvious corollary of only needing to find an LAU-128SE in the wild to assert the capability.
I wonder if Marvin Engineering (or it’s relevant subsidiaries) has had booths at any recent or upcoming tradeshows, especially with how pressing an issue the C-UAS mission set has become in recent times I’d have to imagine any rapidly deployable solution be in demand. and 90% commonality means the kits should be pretty simple to produce. And only need brief flight testing to be certified.
1 Like
There are a handful of airbase takeoff/landing livestreams popping up since the Iran war started. What are the chances of an f-16 actually having a PIDS+ system equipped? Is it standard issue? I might go back over some footage if there’s a decent chance of finding something.
I’d be less likely to see a direct PIDS > MRL mount. It’d be more likely to see a TER-9 / MML + MRL / APKWS pod.
As it seems like an obvious slot left questionably open on F-16’s for example where an AMRAAM / Sidewinder would fit perfectly well as part of a High / Low mix. Since a BRU-57 is lighter, and offers less drag.
I mean the performance of the game actually handling the explosions. IIRC the reasoning was that the game engine couldn’t handle the explosions off all the submunitions from the cluster bombs let alone if multiple players drop them at the same time.
@Gunjob So if we can find a model built IRL of Marvin’s LAU-128CE can we get it in game just like how Russia got KH-38MT from a model?
It’s an LAU-128SE. Not -CE and it has 90% commonality with other MRLs so would be fairly hard to identify from a distance unless obviously unusually mounted .
If I had to guess that the Client it was produced for is Israel so good luck finding photos, since it’s likely the censors would be on top of things.
Im just repeating what gunjob said in the bug report