Yes that true, there is a missile in the work for the SAAF Gripen, called the Merlin, currently there is no official data / information on this, missile, currently gaijin is using the Brazilian version of the JAS39C which used the R-darter.
they arent they are all dif in the files
agreed
multipathing needs to go
it wouldn’t be realistic anyway, those modern seekers can usually ignore it
2 Likes
Can Gaijin add pitbull notification after launch on the HUD, after launch a countdown until the missle goes pitbull, such a thing is present on the mig 29, f16c and probably others, i think this will improve the game
2 Likes
We can’t keeps maps with single main base,… that’s the full problem of the ame play → player do not spread accross the map,… they rush mid-map and that’s all.
Gaijin NEED to make them spreaded by putting Large EC maps AND 2 fields in each corners, in order to force 8 to spawn on Airfield 1 and 8 to spawn on airfield 2.
6 Likes
Yeah, but no,… shit is shit when it’s told to be shit and it is shit because it’s still a one flare out missile,…
The missile is nearly unavoidable from 1.2km launch, but under 0.8km you have the large possibility that the missile doesn’t “connect” with the ennemy.
With the current change, of guidance delay switching from 0.5 to 0.3sec → that low range delay might get somewhere 0.6km.
Meanwhile every other missiles does far more : about 1.5km and missile is unavoidable
Down to 0.6km actual (50% fail probability)
(Those exemple were for a Rear aspect shot)
So,… worst of 4, makes it only worst of more,… even 9L is somehow more capable than MAGIMP-2
12v12 was too much even before the 16v16 change when we had primitive missiles mostly.
12v12 for ARBEC and 8v8 for ARB at most. We won’t settle for anything more.
For those of you reading this, please consider voicing your opinion on this as well. We can no longer tolerate this especially when FOX3 are coming.
9 Likes
What we can tolerate though, is Gaijin spreading us far more on maps that are currently 120x120km, because you guys don’t use full size of map → leading the game to go mostly within a 120x12km large band of the map,…
→ players are the reason why this game maps sucks,… no one spread volountarely, and all you guys want is BUS into the ennemy one.
As told earlier, would be able to remain in 16vs16 if something similar is done.
2 Likes
How do you expect people to spread when they all just spawn in the same airfield
4 Likes
Doesn’t matter even if we had a 1000x1000km map if the objectives are crammed into 1% of the area and both teams take off from 1 fixed location airfield which is revealed to the enemies.
Maybe if we had multiple random spawning hidden airfields with multiple spread out objectives… Oh wait, that’s ARBEC.
8 Likes
2 Likes
I said - as told earlier - ^^"
@bananomet : there is possibilities already to have non EC mode with full potential, since current ARB is mostly about killing other people rather than doing Objectives (at least for toptier and nearly everything above 9.7)
Warthunder never focus on balance. So why cannot China be the overpowered one? Plus PL-12 in game right now is nerfed, and performs worse than R-77.
3 Likes
Same for MICA, performance infos are subpar by about 35% (overall) [not even have 3d model]
really hope next testing/next day of testing will make the teams smaller, 16v16 is way too much. We shouldn’t be limited on technology just because there’s too much people on each team.
5 Likes
I played this test for about 3 hours. The followings are my opinions.
- Sensor view in replays is a good idea. However, I suffered from terrible framedrops when there are multiple missiles flying. Seems rendering texts costs too much CPU or GPU resource. (BTW, if you switch the language from English to Chinese, you get about 5% fps loss, because rendering Chinese texts costs more.)
- Most players still fly at 10 meters above the ground to get protection from multi-path clutters.
- Missiles have excessively large RCS, which means that they can be easily detected by radars on the planes, and the target focused by TWS will be attracted by enemy missiles. Also, the missiles would locks on enemy missiles rather than enemy planes. They are never fixed since F-14A get into the game.
- There are too many players in one game. 8vs8 or 6vs6 would be better. Right now the information overload is more severe than ever before.
- The performances of the missiles are seriously unrealistic.
A F-16C, Ma 1.2 at 20000ft, locks on an enemy with same alt and same speed. The dynamic launch range on the right of the radar suggests that the max range of 120A is about 65km (35nm). I think this data can only be achieved at 30000ft by 120C3/C5.
PL-12 use the same seeker with R-77-1, which is better than the one on R-77.
R-77 has a poor range due to the grille wings.
13 Likes
well almost all radars since 2015 and onwards (with some discrepancies ±some years) have the capability to detect missiles.
the JAS39C for example:
Spoiler
This is a problem though.
65km range for AIM-120A is correct. the AIM-120C+ has about 100km+ range
1 Like
What gaijin should do, when they add the Active Radar Homing is by reducing the player count in teams from 16 v16 to 8v8 or 6v6, because currently it hard to focus on multiple fronts at the same time from different directions, the maps size can be same, but the player count should be lowered.
9 Likes
What? Why are you launching any IR missile head-on?
9L sees flares far easier while being less maneuverable. 9L is significantly worse than Magic 2.
1 Like
Absolutely wonderful gameplay. We are SOO ready for this. /s /j
1 Like