If you can’t keep a thread civil, then it gets shutdown. Simple as that.
5 Likes
I won’t say what I want to say, as I don’t really want a forum break.
But buffing the non-existent weapon is disgusting. It’s dramatically overperforming with its seeker and any honesty would see it nerfed into the ground, not buffed.
Disgusted.
2 Likes
B-b-b-but the thread was closed because Gaijin doesn’t want to face the reality.
It only took them more than a month and thousands of posts to do just that lmao. Some people are beyond delusional.
2 Likes
Yes there are many bad actors which I why we need better moderation and not blanket approach of closing off topics. Notice Gaijin have not reopened the thread and likely wont. Even if they did all it takes is some Russian main to be vocal or toxic and they close it again.
Lets be real no Russian main is going to willingly give up their “I win button” I think in the kill count for the game it should split them between ground kills and kills with CAS.
3 Likes
At most, the IR variant would be removed.
1 Like
and this was considered too OP for the Brimstone that it had to have it’s FnF totally removed…
This person is wrong, you cannot with the exception of the laser guided option in theory. But even then, I’ve yet to achieve it and I’ve been trying to for a bit. Just doesn’t seem to want to loft like the IR one with a proper lock.
1 Like
For sure, and that’s fine as the other varients exist. :)
I’ve heard from a few people that LOAL is fully modeled on the KH-38MT now, I guess teh capture area is pretty small.
Anyway, definetly annoying that rather than removing the KH-38MT that never existed, its gotten a buff and yet other nations with pretty major outstanding issues in terms of AGMs, have gotten absolutely 0 bug fixes sorted (thinking stuff like Brimstones have near 0-Drift IOG for example IRL)
If by LOAL they mean how literally every other IR weapon works* by having a ground point target and swapping to tracking if there’s a target on the position, then yeah. But that’s not unique to Kh 38. It’s also been the case since introduction.
*Caveat for spikes, because I can’t remember how they work. They’re weird.
1 Like
The difference is though that AGM-65 can only be fired within lock range. (also without IOG, it often just self destructs)
AASM can be fired from beyond it, but is slow and the target may have moved. I’ve also heard it was bugged and didnt work.
KH-38MT is the only missile with both the speed and range to properly exploit it.
Been firing them on dev well outside of lock on range. Taken out a few of the new AAs with Gripen that way.
1 Like
AGM-65s should only have a max range of 15-20km.
Lock ranges have been increased to 30km.
People had more than enough chances to simmer down and keep it civil.
It was a mess for quite a lot of the month it was up for.
The volunteer moderators have no interest in having to constantly lock and clean up the same threads every time someone throws a fit. And they shouldn’t have to.
2 Likes
I appreciate they are volunteers. But as I said if someone wants to act in bad faith and get a topic closed they can by creating disharmony on that post.
Gaijin didn’t want to acknowledge the issue so the mods just started quoting sanctioning actions but not to the instigators they closed the whole topic.
If you can’t see the flaw in that I don’t know what to tell you
1 Like
From my screwing around just now, from sufficient altitude and speed I am getting hits from launches at 25km from AGM 65 at times.
I do not know if you have used either, but it is on parity with AASM for how effectively it can acquire a target from a point launch in my experience at the ranges they are employed. At present, Kh 38 and AASM are still limited by the requirement to get a point lock. This is at most 30km, and if we’re being honest generally around 25km. Only the gps/laser guided variants are not requiring this.
One person gets temp banned.
It wasn’t one person causing it…
As I said insufficient moderation, there are too many topics/pages discussions for the volunteer mod team to manage.
If they have GPS (which they both do) they should be able to be fired using CCRP without a point lock
Yeah, that’s not how it works. Point locks are required. It requires a point lock, it is then using the gnss/gps simulacrum (I assume, I’ve not found evidence one way or the other yet) until it reaches the tracking distance, at which point if the target is on the point lock, it begins tracking.
3 Likes