I did play during 1.77 and around that time (or the entirity of 2018 for that matter) the Abrams wasn’t balanced lmao. They were stomping incredibly hard. So you better had a 70% winrate around that time, that should be around average for that period.
No the video of the Japan map in your HC. Where you just sit on a hill and do nothing, failing to kill an enemy that isn’t even looking at you with the first 2 shots iirc.
I don’t think you care, I just know that you think that you are a better player than you are in reality. Keep saying that “I don’t care” excuse, you are just the average cannon fodder teammate in game.
You are aware that multi-spectral Smoke formulations that include chaff do exist, it wouldn’t be to hard to hand wave it away and it wouldn’t be the first time things like this have been abstracted.
I’d much rather they get the AGM-179, you know actually US tech that is in service.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
