Relocking with DL has been similarly “refused” for ARH missiles, due to technical reasons.
One solution that they could implement is having it automatically reconnect to DL if the original target it was datalinked for is relocked (pretend it’s the operator doing it automatically for you). Would not allow retargeting to another target using datalink though, but it would still be better than now (doing nothing).
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZzrCDyoVlwu2
i made another bug report, while its sad to see how munition intercept is limited by the server acording to that statement, it not beeing able to see munition is a big part of it aswell , honestly if they just get it accepted that would be ok for me
bruh, they got a hairtrigger on declining issues, i guessi can do it again with exactly what they want but man, this is just nitpicking
im glad tho that he explained instead of just closing it
Those files are needed for them to be able to investigate the issue. Replay/log files saves the exact moment a screenshot is taken in the code so that the dev’s can actually find the moment in the code that fails. Without the replay/log files there is no code to look through, without a screenshot there is so much code to look through that it is VERY impractical and a large waste of time compared to the few seconds it takes to make a screenshot and find the part of the code in minutes instead of hours.
The steps to reproduce is there to also help describe the issue, like does it only happen at certain angles, certain speeds etc. That helps narrow down what the underlying cause of the issue might be.
This is at least as far as i understand it to work.
can i make the screenshot in a replay aswell or does it have to be in the match? its kinda hard to tell whats going on 10km away from you if i cant use replays
[DEV] TRML-4D missing look-forward/look-back
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/y0H7BpcYYb8E
thank you for posting this on my behalf
you sure you quoted the right one?
lol i messed up
thank you for your reply.
Im having trouble understanding why you think im assuming anything?
my source on the tickrate is anton himself https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/74sm7k/are_sparks_gone_about_wt_netcode/ saying that air runs at 48 tps. And tools have been used to find the real tps in match and for air it is around 40 sometimes lower and ground it is around 20. so what anton writes here seems pretty solid. The only assumtion i did is that ATGM’s run at 48tps.
And for the ARH argument. A plane is way bigger than a small little missile, making it WAY easier for a proxy fuze to detect and hit. And also planes in air RB almost never go over mach1.5. while the missiles i tested went over mach 3. so making the likelyhood of this happening in AIR rb way way lower.
but i will test it later today if air to air missiles alos have this issue at high speeds.
pretty ironic that you are assuming that my testing was based on a assumsion , while i have sources. pretty ironic right?
But ground ARH like 120c-7 don’t have problem with hitting munitions.
i have not tested the 120c-7 but it seems this problem is with all spaa’s with missiles.
or maybe ARH uses different hit reg code than SACLOS or ground based IR missiles
and it goes a bit slower so that helps
This:
You are assuming the server tick rates based on chat GPT information. Not only that, i don’t think a server has different tick rates for different elements, all elements on the server should as far as i know get updated at the same rate. It doesn’t really make sense to run different objects at different rates as the entire rest of the server keeps one rate.
That wasn’t included in the first post :)
well yes, but at the numbers you calculated the same issue would still occur frequently, a jet is perhaps at most 3x the length of a missile. So the issue would then happen only a third of the time, which is still ridiculously often if you’re comparing to the SLM munition misses and i can’t say that i’ve personally seen or heard of such an issue.
I often do get to about that speed in the F-15C at 9+km height. and a ATGM will likely be slower than that and still not get hit by the SLM going at mach 1.
not really since you didn’t list those sources in your first post.
im trying again
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nHvHH2slPeJN
this time, i (alteast i hope) got everything the asked for, logs, replay, pictures that were made ingame, steps to reproduce… i dont know what else could be missing
from doing the minimum range report, I feel that one xDDDDD
@The_Hutske something to add i think that youve not taken into account when comparing SLM and Pantsir is the vector at which the missiles strike each other. With SLMs upwards lofting, the missile will pretty much always try to hit the Kh38 from example from an upwards angle, at which point the interception is much harder as it has to compensate for the immense speed of the missile. On the dev when intercepting Kh38s, the SLM quite often would bear down on the incoming Kh38 and basically miss before turning upwards.
A pantsir has the added advantage that its missiles dont need to loft, they go straight where youre pointing and so if the missile is flying towards you, the 95ya6 just has to fly in a completely straight line towards the missile.
Gaijin just have to add some form of a check that if the missiles were within XYZ distance = intercepted
Ive seen so many of my SLM missiles “hit” via proxy explosions in the air when testing the interception of Kh38s with 0 effect on the Kh38s, they just kept flying straight.
Also another thing thats very shit with SLM rn is the complete travesty of a radar it has, im very hopeful itll be made realistic because even right now, getting a strong lock on a missile is basically close to 0
I used chat gtp for only the missile tps but they said its the same as air (and that is very logical like you said)
also you might go over mach 1.5 in air rb but never head on with a enemy missile (unless you want do die on purpose so the missile wont be comming from direct head on. making it affect the calculations!
and also :plane = 3x bigger is not true bc is not that simple. its length and wingspan and height has to be calculated and thus making it a way bigger target area while a missile is just a skinny stick . so you basically only have to calculate its length.
I shouldve added the source, that was my mistake so im sorry.
It wouldnt let me post it so i had to ask someone else.
and I forgot to send the last bit of text that contained the source
this is true. i calculated a headon from both missiles. but as long as they ‘‘hit’’ eachother in any of the 2 axes the calculations should be correct still.
Wouldn’t this also mean that the missiles dont explode when near each other?. In my testing even with the bad tracking of IRIS-T SL they sometimes still get close enough for IRIS-T to explode. The biggest issue is that it didnt blow up the hammer or the AGM-65D.
