Well it’s a “rumor round-up & discussion” of the coming patch and this change is part of the coming patch (or is it?), so…
Thats also correct
Well as far as we know, this number was fabricated by Gaijin, and again, we don’t have a source (that they’ll accept) to disprove this.
Once again falling into the loop of artificially nerfing NATO missiles using fabricated statistics, then claiming we need to disprove the fabrication instead of proving the real number
Effectively it all comes down again to gaijin extreme intransparancy for decisions. There are never reasons states for decisions, especially the ones made on (at best) dubious or even contradicting or missing data. No reprocessing of the discussion on which a change was made.
As I said earlier this is a buff if you ask me,
its much harder to flare IR missiles the closer they are, The SLM is very easy to flare atm activating the seeker closer will make it harder
My comment to that:
2 Likes
Yet it’s still a limitation, there are going to be more times where this is a hindrance rather than a buff
1 Like
Probably since everything about a missile that interned service 4 years ago is completely classified from its IIR seeker down to it’s engine.
Exactly so how can you refute Gaijins changes based on vague information when there is nothing that indicates Exactly how it works
There are surprisingly very many infos about the technologies used and the behavior of its components. Just no explicit numbers on nearly everything. As it’s also an export weapon they have to advertise with something, I would think…
We can’t, and same thing should apply to them they can’t change something bc someone in the office have a dream about it, it’s by all means unacceptable.
1 Like
At the end of the day Gaijin is the developer they can do whatever they wish be it stupid or not.
The SLM is the best performing SPAA in the game by a LARGE margin
This change will have benefits and downsides
Well it’s apparently fine for Gaijin to use napkin math and blatantly imaginary numbers, but when we use the extremely limited sources they accept, they still deny/delay fixes as long as possible
1 Like
Or at least they should begin to state reasons for the changes they make and the detailed consequences of said changes, because in this case the new behavior of the missile which follows from this change is completly unclear…
Gaijin: Here’s a substantial change to the missile behavior.
Players: Okay? So why was it changed and what’s the consequence of said change?
Gaijin: Refuses to elaborate and leaves the chat.
1 Like
Well the problem is that we need specific numbers, but there is no defence company, that’s going to give you, missile velocity, thrust, burn time, or specific info about the aspects or seeker detection range.
1 Like
There is no benefits that’s the point, the missile will lose the target faster once radar track is lost if the target is not with 4km, it will still track other friendly missile since there is no statement for the devs that say that this bug is fixed, it will still track other ordinance and loss DL, and it’s still very inaccurate when it come to intercepting bombs and other missiles, all wjat that change is do is to nerf the lock range make it only happens at 4km of range which make no sense for a state of the art air defence system.
The only thing I found for the seeker range was this:
The IRIS seeker allows the missile to acquire targets at up to 90 degrees off-boresight and three to four times further away than can today’s Sidewinder, claims BGT - which also builds various versions of the Sidewinder missile under licence in Germany.
Source: Any one for IRIS-T | News | Flight Global
So how far can the seeker of the AIM-9L/I-1 look?
Making the missile harder to defeat when the seeker acquires a target isn’t a benefit? Ok
any dev server updates?
Not yet