Damn, that’s very weird
When’s the dev severs going to be open? I can’t find information anywhere about it.
Yeah I noticed this with my Merkava Mk.3s. In the test drive it had the racks behind the engine filled but in game it had the normal ammo rack order.
However unfortunately the Abrams ammo rack order is screwed in both test drive and normal battles.
1 Like
The update is already out? There is no more Dev servers until the next major
There’s some weird behaviour with ammo placement, it’s actually lethal with vehicles that have nothing but empty space for survivability. Love to see the ammo that should be neatly stacked in one corner of the crew compartment being spread out just to maximise the chance of it being hit
1 Like
They messed with the ammo storage this update for some reason, don’t see any explanation as to why this is, a lot of people mentioned the Abrams now storing ammo in the hull opposed to in their ready rack, which means the blowout panels and such won’t do anything either I imagine.
I hate how many little manipulative things are going on with things like ammo racks and ready racks amongst other things.
1 Like
Similar thing with the Ho-Ri, in a test drive it load racks 4-5.
Yet in a game it’s 1-2.
1 Like
did they just put back the missile launch sound? 😄
As a fellow Mig-23 pilot I highly approve this. Gaijin went too far with this change, and fully automatic switchmode is unrealistic.
@Smin1080p Is there any way I can get this report looked at? Community Bug Reporting System
While I made this as a historical report, I genuinely consider this to be a bug. This is a feature that must have been an oversight. And the reason I say this is because:
This feature is available for…
AIM-7F and was given to AIM-120s.
R-27ER and was given to R-77.
Super 530D but not given to MICA EM.
This feature carried over from some SARH missiles to ARH missiles but was overlooked on MICA EM.
11 Likes
I see a yellow D in the forums, I click on the link and I heart the comment.
That would be a welcome buff considering the range is even more gimped by the wobble.
Actually that could even have an impact on the wobbling at long range, with the PID reducing TVC impur from long distances, who knows
1 Like
That is true, a side-benefit that could help the missile at long ranges. The implication of this feature couldn’t be understated.
1 Like
Isn’t it already the best arh in closer range, it’d be a little broken, maybe to the point they add later amraams
I just want to say that the smaller match option is useless.
Everyone I know and have come across with has it enabled because, just like me and the majority of players, they can’t stand 16v16…
And yet, not even 20% of the matches I play are anything but 16v16. And the very few smaller matches I’ve got were all 12v12, which is better, but a far cry from the “can be anywhere from 6v6 to 12v12”. I have not got anything but 16v16s today as of now.
We really need a HARD ban option.
We need players to be able to select whether they want large matches, small matches, or both. But give us the option to select exclusively one of the types.
Most of us find 16v16 matches a disgrace to the game and yet we are thrown into them even though all of us have the smaller match option enabled…
This “option” thing was presented as a solution to 16v16, at least to those of us who find it to be a problem, and yet, it’s not even an inkling of a solution.
I am starting to seriously consider leaving every 16v16 match before even spawning in from now on.
It’s just not fun. Launch a missile at an enemy? Wasted; the enemy took 4 missiles from other teammates simultaneously. Proceed to die to 5 missiles fired from 3 different enemies.
7 Likes
Yes while it is the best in closer range, it atleast has competitors in that category which is R-77 with 50G. But in BVR, AIM-120A stands alone with no proper alternative when it could be the MICA EM challenging it in BVR capability.
@Smin1080p Is it a feature that the T-80U-E1 's atgm, the 9M119M1 does not trigger the Strikeshield APS on the KF 41 Lynx ?
Because I caught one starboard, right in the middle of the perfectly healthy APS panel and there was no activation whatsoever.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pjvLPjCXnQys
(this thread seems more appropriate for such topic)
Earlier today it intercepted and defeated a spike LR2 from a Namer IFV, so i would like to think that since the threat velocity is within the APS capability it should have at least attempted to stop the atgm.
Strikeshield 70-700 m/s, 9M119M1 is at 445 m/s
At least let the aim 120 be good in longer range, while mica em is best on short otherwise mica em would be outright best in game
I’d rather they give R-77-1 and AIM-120C-5 than to keep the MICA gimped.
Fair enough, though I can’t control what the devs do
1 Like
Gaijin the reverse speed on the zlt-11 is wrong and you have acknowledged it a long time ago can we please get this increase implemented , please