Imagine if this was fixed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CrgLh51VkpQZ
1 Like
Part 5 before update, question mark?
Not a dev blog but a fix everyone should be happy about. Tho this is faster then I thought would happen, figured it come with the next update at the earliest.
4 Likes
Imagine if Gaijin could model SAMs properly
What a wonderful alternate reality that must be
1 Like
6 Likes
This patch ends up turning into my favourite type of patch:
Bugfixes.
Mechanics improvements.
Additional realism for existing vehicles.
Sure, not many interesting vehicles for me, but I’d easily take a year or two of patches with 0 new vehicles, but tons of bugfixes, mechanics improvements/overhauls and more realistic everything.
1 Like
It’s just frustrating that some are being left out for no reason.
[DEV]The F-14B should be impacted by this change to IRST/EOTS
As it would actually give the TCS present on the F-14B an actual function in game instead of doing less than nothing as it does currently.
Hey Tripod, was it you who made a report on AIM-9 lock range some time ago? If so, what came of it?
I would agree that Gaijin’s top priority should be improvements to bug reporting systems, perhaps some overhauling of evidence standards to include academic papers or additional types of source.
But my biggest issue remains things like the damage, flight etc models needing more realism, complexity and sophistication.
The game doesn’t get that much more fun when new vehicles come with old deficiencies.
2S19 is no fun when HE shells are about pixel hunting and gimmicks, rather than sheer destructive energy crumpling plates, damaging all modules, stunning the crew etc etc.
For air, I think more sophisticated lofting behaviour like in Command: Modern Operations is going to become more and more necessary. Dynamic realistic RCS and better radar/ir modelling etc.
A long way to go, but any steps forward are better than no steps or steps backwards.
1 Like
What is the SPICE? Ik it is a form of a guided bomb but what can you relate it too?
They would have to actually model the TCS functionality in the first place.
Just giving it IRST functionality would be wrong
No. Way back I did some reports on the old forums for the AIM-9L and AIM-7F having issues.
In terms of missiles my most recent reports were for the FIM-92, improving the maneuverability and Adding Optical Lock-on Mechanics to the POST seeker, there is also a Separate report for the lock on range, that would increase it out to ~6.5km or so.
All have been accepter for a significant period of time now (approaching a year at this point), and are awaiting implementation.
(I also had some additional supporting sources attached to that report specifically as well after the fact).
I am separately aware of of the following (relevant) reports for the Sidewinder.
I am also sitting on a few pre-written reports awaiting specific functionality to be modeled (e.g. SEAM search pattern, which would otherwise increase pre lock-on, boresight FoV (Field of Regard) of the AIM-9G and later missiles to 4.5 degrees ) for assorted things.
3 Likes
They are like the AASM Hammer kits. Guidance and control stuff for dumb bombs to turn them into guided bombs or even missiles through the addition of a small turbojet engine.
Edit: oh and yeah, the kits also add wings to turn the bombs into glide bombs, not just regular guided bombs
Of so like the bomb the Rafeal carrys?
J-11B is now 13.7 in dev server.
Also added spall liner to VT5
Its basically a modular IR guided bomb that can glide, nothing special but you know diversity in weapons is also diversity
13.7 in ASB(there isnt a bracket with 13.7 max BR in ASB)
That’s up to them. The TCS has Sensor Slave mechanization, where the Radar is slaved to its line of sight (or provides angular tracking of a contact, while the radar provides range information) and does not otherwise prevent Missile Launch and Guidance.
1 Like
No, hammers has the option to be rocket propelled
1 Like
There is the SPICE ER, which has a small turbojet engine