Denmark has ALWAYS been terribly designed… but designed around Rolands.
When you play as redfor and C7 doesn’t spawn an airfield it’s not worth joining the game… who wants to spend half the time flying over water??
and the NW corner doesn’t need FOUR airfields… sometimes FIVE!
Change it so they spawn in B1 and A4 and C7 of course and the problem is solved… the southern ones probably need tweaking too.
but if you want to bomb 5 minibases*** DONT PLAY DENMARK.
Rocky Canyon doesn’t have this issue
Vietnam doesn’t have this issue
Afghanistan doesn’t have this issue
Smolensk doesn’t have this issue
Spain doesn’t have this issue
Sinai doesn’t have this issue(?)
All 128 km2 maps with 5 bases… but rarely played because of stupid Denmark.
Agreed… flying the A-10C up the left side to kill SPAA with lower risk was also my goto when playing a thunderer wager…
PVP was on the right side… and you always knew where there would be at least 4 bases… but again, if C7 didn’t spawn it wasn’t playable since a fighter will spot you if they have to spawn in the NW corner.
but it’s still deathly boring to see 5 Denmark maps and nothing else for the BR…
When dropping the Walleye from this altitude, the range will be about 15 km. You shouldn’t rely on the CCRP indication, it’s incorrect.
Since Denmark is constantly cloudy with a lower boundary of about 2,800 m, I launched the Maws from the Harrier at 13 km. That’s enough to hit the ItO and still have time to evade the return launch.
I think the problem is that you’re approaching the target in the same exact way regardless of situation or munition you’re using? (like a zomber lol) Always at 2-3km altitude? I assume for some ‘testing purpose’ but it kind of misses the point people are trying to make about actually adapting, or learning to engage targets in different ways depending on munition and what you’re going for. I feel like you just made a comparison of what does and doesn’t work at 2-3km altitude approach (and approaching the test-flight adats from the same spawn-side where it’s obstructed by trees from that altitude every time?) I don’t have time or planes to recreate all of your tests but I went into test flight in simulator difficulty with 9.7 Ayit and had no problems taking out the Adats using the walleyes, not even any CCRP marker in the HUD aside from the target point mark. I’m not sure how you messed that one up. Is the SPAAG those moving targets?
For TV or IR seeker a lot of factors matter when it comes to if you can track stuff, so depends on weather / time of day and contrast. I could get accurate point tracks 15km out that destroyed the adats at pretty low altitude with AGM65G, you can likely extend that in better conditions, or lower it a lot on worse conditions. If you have worse conditions, it’s better to change your approach by selecting your target from a distance with target point or map and then approach close flying low and pop-up to launch
Also with the SDB’s, again this depends on how high and what speed you launch them as you know. They glide extremely far, you can easily make the full 30km of the targeting pod work, further if you mark on the map. Also SDB’s, or any GPS bomb for that matter is almost pin-point accurate if it has the means to reach there in the first place. Throw around a bunch of glide bombs at max range and you’ll see the grouping yourself. I made 2 gbu39’s work to destroy the 2 test-flight sead targets easily at 30km, just takes time to reach there
Rendering is absolutely an issue in some cases, mainly convoys going under ground. Trees can be annoying too but can be worked around
Exactly. The aim was just to get a baseline of “how far can I reach under certain compareable conditions”. Varying to many parameters makes comparing impossible.
The next step obviously would be to test and refine optimized envelopes/profiles/tactics for each situation/weapon/aircraft.
Hm, have to try again. Dropping the Walleyes from about 12, 13km out would result in a miss for me.
What’s really a pity is that we don’t have any useful information about the ballistics/gliding capabilities of those weapons, and as you say the CCRP marker in (some…) HUDs may be misleading or outright wrong.
Something like this would be useful for all those weapons:
…but I don’t even see what parameter in the weapons specs (in the respective blk files) would allow us to calculate or at least “guesstimate” such profiles…
Little sidenote: Tried out my new F-2 ADTW yesterday, with 2000-pounder JDAM-ER’s: Could decimate the Air Defense of one base in two sorties, but still got within inescapeable range of the ItO’s both times.
Again a problem of map design: In Afghanistan, Red always starts in the south, and all enemy bases are well hidden in the higher mountains, and thus attack profile with gliding weapons is tricky, as you need more altitude to see into the valleys.
For Blue spawning in the North, the enemy bases are all located in much more open, unobstructed landscape, making it much easier to engage with gliding weapons from farther out.
The F-2 isn’t a 10.7 plane with less than half the capability.
Ito 90 starts at 10.7 that’s the problem. At 11.7 they are a bit more manageable.
Gaijin only made it start at 10.7 to kill of the usefulness of those 10.7 premiums, because they know people enjoy that br. If you kill off that br, they are forced to buy new things, lucky for everyone a premium fest of F-18s just dropped for every flavor.
I have the same issue regarding the f4ej Adtw is a Vietnam era jet with ccip, not ccrp, because it didn’t have it . Means u have no bomb auto release and drop it one by one despite set to 17 bombs at once .It’s simply impossible to grind in sim . When u try to dogfight ur teamate either didn’t see the viggen or keep marking where they are and do nothing . It’s really impressive .
That’s not quite true: It HAS CCRP, as do the other F-4E variants, but in WT lacks the indicators that help the pilot align the aircraft with the desired CCRP target.
I reported this ages ago, but it was considered “not a bug”, even though even the pilot manual of the US F-4E cleraly describes how several isntruments help the pilot do exactly that:
Similarly for the F-111’s, which relied heavily on CCRP, there is no indication in the cockpit that allows the pilot to use it in sim, and the F-105 has the same problem.
You would see if you use those aircraft in AB or RB, that the CCRP does actually work, but those aircraft in WT only shows the targeting information in external view, so in Sim that doesn’t work.
It’s really the one sole reason why I don’t fly those iconic aircraft in Sim, even though I’d very miuch like to…
