It’s not all too different to the fact that Aircraft countermeasure’s effectiveness is being based off volume, not chemical composition, or engine’s IR signature being based of thrust, not exhaust temperature.
Or the dwell time of smoke themselves where its not actually based off anything but is a balancing decision.
Unfortunately, gaijin wants to use every excuse possible not to add agm114L even though they knowingly can artificially nerf for game balance’s sake. The state of US top tier is just an insult at this point I really wish they would just remove it instead of leaving it in such a state.
it is 11.7 already
In RB it’s 11.3.
I just checked it 11.3 across the board, I could’ve sworn it said 11.7 when I played it yesterday
No they can’t. Their rules dictate they can’t.
And I see @Ladies_Man_217 wants everyone that criticizes Russian equipment blocked… very telling.
They absolutely can do that?
PARS 3 LR used to be a SALG missile rather than a F&F IIR one back when it was first added because Gaijin had been afraid it’d be too OP.
It is still nerfed to this day in more ways than one, even though it’s been 4 years since its additon.
IR guidance wasn’t in the game for an air to ground weapon prior to PARS 3, and the first time I saw PARS 3 it was IR guided… of course prior to any other IR guided air to ground weapons by at least a year.
I believe you that it wasn’t at some point, but the reasons why would’ve been that they didn’t want to code IR guidance at the time due to cost of the programming.
It’s sad that there are posts arguing War Thunder’s critics are “AI” and “employees”… honestly pathetic.
Everyone knows employees have icons next to their name.
The IR guidence is the same for air & ground missiles, so that’s irrelevant.
I believe you that it wasn’t at some point, but the reasons why would’ve been that they didn’t want to code IR guidance at the time due to cost of the programming.
Okay, source.
do you know how long it takes gaijin to fix bug? we’ll be on the 7,000 series of videos cards before they fix anything.
why are you insulting A.I!
So can you explain why Electro-Optical Contrast seekers were effectively replaced wholesale with Correlation seekers across the board? As far as I can tell that was a nerf and they won’t revert it, even though its literally a single change to Boolean; “surfaceAsTarget”: true from true to false to fix the issue.
But as you can see from this report
Here is Developers answer
Quote
Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.Therefore, this issue is considered resolved
But then they know the difference between a Contrast seeker and Correlation Seeker as seen below;
They also have systems that could be repurposed to compute dynamic range to a target anyway(for use to approximate edge tracking), with the bounding box found when you lock onto a point target using a TGP or helicopter gunner sight.
Or why they reduced MANPADS G loading in 1.97 ( * “Igla”, “Stinger” and “Mistral” missiles - corrected flight performance and seeker parameters: engine thrust has been increased, lateral acceleration has been decreased.) with bogus sources, and then when evidence to the contrary was submitted it was rejected out of hand and then published what has to be the blatant piece of Item A looks like Item B so it must work the same, I think I’ve ever seen with the MANPADS article. Hopfully they will correct teh FIM-92 at some point as basically everything is wrong with it (report #1, #2, #3)
what? No FTOM people joined because of the Same Exact Protection. Tank was dead on arrival. unless you count people who G.E everything.
LMFAO you base the M1 Abrams and the M1IP on a a shitty sep variant 5 years after those 2 tanks ere out? LMFAO.
rofl https://youtu.be/aMrLzpY794g When i was in the M1Abrams I always go for the caps.
Radar guidance to ground targets is implemented in War Thunder, thus a false equivalence fallacy.
You should’ve known that prior to posting it as you should’ve read their response.
Lol 3 kills and 1 cap isn’t exactly a lot to brag about during a period where the M1 and IPM1 were some of the most broken tanks this game would ever see.
This doesn’t exactly look like first one in though.
How? Have I not provided two near independent examples of changes being arbitrarily made to reduce performance even in the face of evidence to the contrary. and proper function upon initial implementation what would stop them from making a third?
That’s the thing if you actually read my report I even pointed out the issue, that would be implementable, as proven above its a single Boolean value to correct the underlying issue.
What should be done to remedy the issue(s):
- Disallow the AGM-65A,-B,D, GBU-8/B,-15(V)1, AGM-62A,-62A ER from being able to lock onto the ground, though they should retain the ability to lock static AI ground targets
Game limitations are not arbitrary… they’re limitations due to lack of foresight.
So you’re implying that its some form of bias then, since its not arbitrary? Thanks for admitting it.
The thing is that in both cases, they were effectively fine, until they were changed after implementation.
Can you please explain how in your mind changing the state of an existing Boolean value is simply not possible, or supposedly lacks foresight when they themselves acknowledge that they understood the difference between the systems in an official release and so it is obviously not performing as they intend.
I understand now that whomever actioned the report probably employed some form of MTL translation, and so the actual thrust of the report was probably lost on them somehow.
@tripod2008
So apparently the fact War Thunder cannot do x feature is bias to you?
The act of assuming malice in everything will inherently misrepresent the subjects spoken on.
Especially since you don’t specify the bias, and it’s obviously not Soviet bias which is why you didn’t specify. It’s a bogus claim.
“Radar AGMs can be added in a nerfed state where they don’t have radar guidance.”
Radar guidance is already on radar AGMs.
“Okay, well they implemented IR missiles with IRCCM but not this specific IRCCM not currently a feature in War Thunder.”
Yep, that is still IR guidance and still IRCCM.
“Clearly bias for/against an unnamed entity for no reason.”
Oh… this is a movement of goalpost. I just realized.
The radar guided AGM in question:
The MTI search radars in question:
There is no precedent of changing guidance type to what is already in War Thunder unless it’s switching to a more accurate representation.
Its more that had functioning feature(s), broke / changed them in error, require documentation to fix them and then reject the sufficiently sourced report out of hand even though it was previously in a working state. and now required even more detailed documentation to actually fix the issue. And now they are just sitting on the report(s).
There are similar issues with the TOW-2B and M735 too, where we know they are currently erroneously modeled and awaiting fixes.
Where are you pulling this bit of the quote from? You do understand that some formulations of multi-spectral smoke do in fact include chaff, which again as implemented in game would defeat the guidance mechanisms relying on active radar emissions as seen with its interaction with (S)ARH seekers.
Please directly answer this question
Why can the AGM-65 currently lock onto the ground when they have acknowledged that Contrast Seekers (Such as the AGM-65) should not be able to do so? And is the functional difference them and Correlation type seekers.
Just in case you haven’t noticed this is a significant downgrade, and is not an increase in accuracy, and considering the dev response to the initial bug report, they probably won’t fix it in future either, since a proper implementation is computationally expensive.
