Yes let me find it on my computer. ET around 2 hours of searching.
Probably not BOL specifically, but PIDS/ legally distinct pylon CM systems
1 Like
Lucky me didn’t take to long at least for some basic stuff. Will provide more in depth things when I find it.
2 Likes
Yeah definitely.
2 Likes
No reason to not give to US F-16’s then
Yes fr
Under no circumstance should MP be fully removed. No matter if you want realism first or gameplay first and no matter how many gameplay improvements Gaijin cooks up, MP needs to stay and either get adjusted on a per missile + radar basis or on a per BR bracket basis.
As long as the majority of maps is as terribly designed as they currently are 60m is fine, it’s not nearly as easy to fly under the blanket as it was with the prior threshold and trying to stay below the threshold has its own set of risks. Now some of these risks do depend on what plane you are flying, but generally there still is a very real risk of getting splashed, especially if the missile approaches from above.
As we all know, objects are always closer than they appear and trees don’t move. Not to mention that trees in WT are also extremely tall (and sometimes magical cough floating trees and oversized hitboxes cough).
also, packet loss loves to strike when you least expect it
Sure, if trees got cut down to realistic sizes reducing the MP threshold a bit further would be fine, heck, I’d even welcome a reduction as someone that just loves following the terrain as closely as possible, but I don’t think reducing it below 40m would ever be necessary or good for the game.
I’m not sure what the exact threshold for taking almost guaranteed splash damage from regular Fox-3s (excluding the mini nukes that the Phoenix and Fakour are), but from my experience 30-35m is where you will start taking splash damage from close impacts. There also isn’t much wiggle room left with a 40m MP threshold, fly just a bit too high and the missiles will be able to perfectly track you, fly a bit too low and you will get crippled by the missiles splash damage.
Last but not least, do you really think the average player would enjoy the game more if they are forced to fly defensively and evade missiles for like 66-75% of the match? I’m pretty sure reducing the MP threshold below 60m would have the opposite effect.
Spoiler
Pretty sure actually fixing MP would cause way more headaches, but I guess by fixing you meant removing instead
Yeah, by “removal” I mean removal of a fixed height set purely for gameplay and not on realism. MP did exist though is usally 30-50% lower than what is in game for a lot of missiles (probably could have worded it better than “removal”)
Ultimately,. it being set to a per missile basis would be the most realistic option and therefore the best keeping to what War Thunder should be about.
I can only see MP causing a lot of issues in coming years. From balancing the various types of Gen 5 IR missiles, to ARH guided SAMs in GRB. And it has already caused a lot of issues in terms of balancing aircraft imo
MP set to a fixed ahistorically high setting is a short term stopgap for other problems and just feels more like burying one’s head in the sand rather than addressing said issues.
I think this is a fairly reasonable list of issues that could really do with being resolved regardless of whether MP was set to 0m or 1000m
2 Likes
Mind explaining how MP would cause problems with balancing newer IR missiles?
The thing is, it’s only ahistorically high for post-Skyflash (dunno how else to word it right now) radar homing missiles. For pre-Skyflash radar homing missiles it’s ahistorically low.
Definitely
I missed this on my first read through (I scan read)
Maybe…
But personally I found the gameplay of flying at an absolute maximum altitude of 200ft far more boring. Which is basically what I did for an entire year in the Tornado F3 vs Mig-29s in SB, because my missile would be defeated by MP and theres I would have to try and notch and chaff, which was basically impossible with the old Tornado FM
Is MP even a notable thing for ESA radars (irl)?
I don’t know, I’m not a military pilot or a radar engineer. It probably is close to being non-existant, but at that point the proximity fuzes of the missiles become the limiting factor anyways, rather than the minimal amount of MP
ASRAAM and MICA IR would jsut outrange everyone else. British Typhoons and Rafales would basically always win because they could fire beyond everyone elses max range and normally that wouldnt be an issue because they could just send a BVRAAM instead, but if the target can defend with MP alone, then that isnt really an option.
Post inverse monopulse seekers.
and yes… But also a lot of those early SARH missiels were also paired with radars without PD or MTI. So would largely be useless anyway if the target was simply in ground clutter. I dont precisely know which missiles did and did not have that and especially if any are also paired with MTI/PD in game.
Maybe the R-24R? Maybe R.530? But I simply dont know.
But for a vast majority, if it can see a target at low alt, it probably can engage it too.
For example. Mirage III radar
(from Harrier 809)
(ground clutter is MASSIVELY muted in game too)
1 Like
The MICA IR would definitely outrange the rest, but IRIS-T, R-74M and Python-5 definitely can keep up with the ASRAAMs range and they will likely all have their pros and cons. However at that point you also have to factor in that most planes that carry those missiles can carry a boatload of missiles and these IR missiles are supposed to be pretty good at destroying incoming missiles.
I’m not sure when exactly each nation started using inverse monopulse seekers, but the F-4J/S and their AIM-7Fs are the main example I can think of. The R-23 and R-24 actually already had monopulse seekers, but I believe there are plenty of PD equipped NATO planes in the game that do not get AIM-7Ms.
I thought it was an earlier variant but yes, looking it appears its not until the M that IMS was added to them.
So yeah, the Phantoms would perhaps be the most heavily affected then if seekers were set accurately. Though could they just get the Ms I wonder?
Though also isnt a half bad way to balance the FGR2 vs F-4S or Mig-23MLD vs F-4S (and raise the BR of the Mig-23MLD)
And there are live fire test results showing AIM-7Fs, which essentially shares a seeker with the earlier Es, being effective well below that 5000ft number the mirage pilots gave. @Morvran and it was done by the British themselves when evaluating the 7F vs Skyflash. I believe the number of the top of my head is ~200ft even in a lookdown scenario.
I’ve seen many different numbers for the minimum altitude for non monopulse seekers over the last years, but I am farily certain that the 200ft number stems from tests against sea skimming targets rather than against targets flying above solid ground