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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
@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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
@tripod2008
M735’s fixes are in development.
TOW-2B doesn’t have unique problems, it suffers the same problems of all proxy-round missiles:
Overpressure not being as accurate as it should be, and fragmentation not being as accurate as it should be.
Not unique to TOW-2B.
Prove that all 10 tech trees use them. Again, there’s no evidence that any of the tech trees use them, and only rumors that China does.
Because of game limitations on how “select target point” works. That’s been the answer since they were introduced.
All guided weapons of War Thunder use the “select target point” system, just modified.
It’s limiting and causes issues.
Th unique problem of the TOW-2B is that it is a dual warhead missile, that entirely lacks its second warhead. And unlike all other tandem designs does not have bonus penetration, or ERA defeating capabilities.
Do I actually need to? Gaijin doesn’t require evidence about which particular Chaff formulation (Since band effectivity is a function of characteristic length of the dipoles, and so band coverage and dispersal rate / pattern depend on the ratio of lengths used and packing order ) is used but instead provides broad-spectrum impact to all radar systems, which we know is not constant across the various systems.
So can you explain why you think that simply changing “surfaceAsTarget” from true to false, for the relevant ordnance would not effectively resolve the issue?
2 Likes
Well yeah, tandem/dual warhead isn’t a feature of War Thunder.
In the case of tandem, it’s just a line of text on a statcard that means nothing.
Gaijin needs evidence for weapons used on vehicles, which defensive systems like smoke count.
Same reason we needed evidence to prove 1x2 inch flares should be considered large caliber.
As for this one… I don’t know what Gaijin’s cooking in even most of their development.
I have the same public information on some systems, and decent guesses on others.
Working on those systems have impacts on fixing other issues.
If Gaijin’s working on an AI overhaul, they’re not going to work on new game modes or major game mode modifications until that’s finished cause that’ll be wasted work; as an example. Business sense.
This isn’t them saying this, this is me with my business studies saying this and seeing the behavior from other companies.
If they’re working on weapon changes across the board, they could be holding off on implementation of things fixed for the new system that are currently “playable” in the current version of the game. Does this mean we’re stuck with what we have for a while? Yeah.
Tandem warheads that aren’t tandem? Yep.
Missiles lacking dual-plane maneuvering? Yep.
So on and so forth.
To tie that back to AGM-114L and smoke with chaff…
1- You have to prove smoke with chaff is used on modern tanks by all tech trees just like we have to prove the capability of flare systems.
2- You have to accept the fact AGM-114L would enter War Thunder with at least the same system as AS.34 but able to lock onto ground vehicles, thus be undefeatable by smoke.
And 3- Acknowledge the fact that smoke and flares don’t have nuance in War Thunder. They’re very simple simulations that due to their simplicity mean new game features are required for modifying their abilities.
So why does the Tandem AGM-111K have improved penetration capabilities in comparison to the basic AGM-114B, even though the main charges are similar. An 100mm flat bonus to penetration would be significant for the TOW-2B.
The problem is that at least for now you have two (Three) categories for size, Standard & Large, which was intended to offset the fact that systems of Soviet origin tended to carry large volume, low quantity flares(mostly because they used less advanced formulations, and had different requirements and developmental methods), and so were put the at a distinct disadvantage during the period where flare performance was generic. (The Small class does the inverse and directly impacts LAU-138’s performance)
Then we have Western flares that fall into four separate form factors ; BOL-IR (2 x 3 x 1/4"), M206(1 x 1 x 4 or x 8"), MJU-7 (1 x 2 x 4 or x 8") and MJU-10 ( 2 x 2 x 8").
Of course with the two sperate categories, you come across the issue of why would you use the MJU-17 Flare bucket, when it only provides space for 6 countermeasures (Jammers are not implemented so it lacks one of its distinct advantages of the larger cartridges), when you could use the MJU-12 and have space 15 instead with the same performance (IRL the decision depends on expected threat, variant of countermeasure available, mission profile, and airframe), as the MJU-11, -12 & -17 Countermeasure magazines all fit in the standard form factor of the modern ALE-40 /-45 /-47 dispensers.
If had any input what I would probably do to rebalance things is also implement the covert nature (no report in the visual spectrum) of BOL-IR / ( & M221 countermeasure flare) to offset their worse performance and so make them more effective when being used pre-emptively (a further boost to their impact could be had if the FOV indicator was hidden, though the Gimbal limit indicator can remain as a guide).
They obviously don’t have a single team, and much of the work tasks can if properly planned be pipelined to increase throughput significantly.
This is the bit that I just don’t understand why you cling to it as being being of critical importance.
Much of what we have for countermeasures is abstracted (due to their nature, and also the potential for some systems to be held in war reserve) so its unlikely to be possible to prove its use for All Tech trees or at least the entirely of top tier (If we’re going to that level of granularity, and it would not be the first time a report is rejected due to game balance concerns) and so I don’t see why some level of handwaving in not practical, since the intent is to provide many additional nations’ helicopters some access to F&F ordnance and so allow balance to be had since more advanced ordnance is still a ways off (systems like the AGM-179 or LMUR missiles that would allow for an extended engagement range of more advanced SAM threats and so not completely write of helicopters after a point).
As proof that they do exist and entered service you have the US’s 66mm (IR/MMW) M81 obscurant smoke grenade;
See above, there are systems that would defeat it available in a similar time frame.
In part at best, much of what would be needed could be reused with minor modification of existing systems to reach an acceptable level of granularity. It would be far less work than an entirely new bespoke system since much of the planning, hard work and implementation has already been done.
1 Like
Marking Russian tanks protection more realistic
Really? you guys really think Gaijin would do that? lol hell no i mean even now at overperform state of their armor ERA and survivability RU mains still complain about Strv122 and Leopard 2A7 being OP even leopard are in underperform condition such as armor and lack ANTI-ERA property on DM53
making their armor more realistic trust me it will be slaughter even in thier overperform states against enemies in underperfrom state they already getting murdered already
I might love killing them i still don’t want RU main to go extinction
3 Likes
i a simulator match where the enemy team has 7 PEOPLE AND I’VE ALREADY CAPTURED A BASE.
Rush in vs SWEDEN&GERMANY? LOL SURE BUDDY. I pissed off that entire team to the point they bombed all the trees off that hill, and i still didn’t die, and i got a nuke doing this but the game ended on either this match or the next one, doing the same thing.