I’m not lying, if WT modelled the absense of a inverse monopulse seeker, pre-7M Sparrows, R-3Rs, AIM-9Cs, Matra R511s and Matra R530s wouldn’t work properly at low altitudes, yet they do. All of those missiles would also be way less accurate than they currently are.
Again, the multipathing in WT is a gameplay thing, not a realism thing.
That’s because it doesn’t reproduce seeker characteristics and the multipath altitude is fixed at 60m.
Currently, regardless of the seeker originally installed, you will be fooled by multipath at 60m. It is true that normal pulse seekers would be worse, but their improved performance does not come from being monopulse.
If it was monopulse, it would have almost complete immunity to surface targets.
In other words, the current missile seeker is a mysterious entity that is neither a pulse seeker nor a monopulse seeker…
If you are looking for gameplay corrections, there are other options. There is no reason to abandon the material presented and continue to use unrealistic choices, and no reason to continue to use them and be allowed to do so.
Inverse monopulse seekers have improved accuracy over regular pulse. The devs themselves have said at some point that they modelled all SARH missiles to behave as if they have monopulse seekers.
That is because ALL radar missiles behave as if they had the SAME type of seeker, an INVERSE MONOPULSE seeker. The multipath threshold present in the game has nothing to do with this.
Just because the effects of multipath propagation, ground clutter and ground absorption are overexaggerated in-game for gameplay reasons doesn’t mean that the missiles aren’t modelled to act like they had an inverse monopulse seeker.
If that is the case, we simply urge that the unrealistic hyperbole be dropped and that a more realistic response be made.
Whatever the reason, there is no reason to welcome the status quo, in which advanced missiles behave in an unadvanced manner.
Them forwarding it as a suggestion means its never getting added lol.
Now that I think about it, the monopulse seeker’s construction principle allows it to ignore reflections from the ground.
In other words, reflections from positions other than the target cannot form the appropriate polarization during reconstruction, so they are excluded from the tracking algorithm.
This should be effective even if reflections from the ground are strengthened.
Or we just keep it the way it is because Gaijin still hasn’t modelled proper ECM or better countermeasures in general and they haven’t done anything to adapt the general gameplay to better suit modern aircraft either.
You can play BVR with the other LARPers and the remaining majority of players will just keep scooting low to get to the furball and enjoy their WVR combat. If people don’t want to climb to fight you, you have 3 options, 1) keep lobbing ARHs at them until one hits, 2) drop down and engage in WVR with them or 3) RTB and leave.
I think that ECM’s effectiveness is limited due to burnthrough, because the engagement distance is close in WT. (Although I would welcome it if it comes…)
I don’t know much about CM, but from reading the published doctrine of the US military, I’m sure there is a limit to how much it can evolve.
I don’t think these are prerequisites for removing multipath.
Or it should be possible to remove multipath first as a stepping stone to that.
While I don’t know how effective radar jammers would end up being, there are things like BriteCloud and towed decoys, which definitely would be very effective.
Proper (E)CMs, tree size adjustment and general gameplay reworks definitely are pre-requisites for further multipathing reduction and at no point should multipathing be entirely removed.
While their existence is certainly more desirable, they came much later than the advent of monopulse.
The ones that came before were not installed on the F15C or Su27.
So I just can’t see them as essential.
They didn’t consider during development that a decoy would be absolutely necessary against monopulse missiles, and that the non-existent 15C would be woefully fragile and unsurvivable.
In fact, there are many cases where WT has been able to avoid missiles without relying on multipath. I don’t accept the claim that multipath is the last resort.
multipath is definately reduced in arh missiles, probably down to 20m
should we go at that point ? yes
should we do it now ? no
We dont have any ECM or towable decoys yet. multipath gives atleast another way to counter these ARH missiles. and not to mention, it barely works with trees as tall as 50m.
lets wait till we get ecm, i wouldnt want multipath nerfed till then
Radar jammers are older than A2A missiles, mate.
ECM in general precedes A2A missiles.
You know why the more advanced countermeasure werent developed earlier?
Real world aerial combat is nothing like War Thunder. SARH missiles weren’t pinpoint accurate, most SARH missiles had less than half of the range of AIM-120As and most importantly there are no markers IRL.
Sorry, I was talking about towed decoys, but I guess I omitted it so I couldn’t read it…
I don’t understand how that is justified in terms of the lack of missile performance. If the missiles are weak and chaff is sufficient, I think this simply explains why even if multipath is removed, it can be dealt with using chaff instead.
What does it have to do with the fact that markers don’t appear in reality? In WT, missile markers are basically not visible. Defense relies heavily on information from RWR. Either way, it doesn’t support the need for multipath.
Multipath should exist as usual for fox3 only
But for SARHs, it should be like multipath only at 20m or below
Why is that? Common sense would dictate that newer ARHs will have better multipath resistance.
In reality, multipath was practically completely overcome at the time of SARH.Multipath should be 0.
Even if we think of it as a game, ARHs do not need multipath defense as much. That’s because if they become active, they can withdraw with Drag without relying on multipath.
ARHs should have even less multipath interference.
I wasn’t talking about the missile diamonds, I was talking about player markers.
The engagement distances were much smaller IRL because you wouldn’t just fire missiles at the first target you see on your radar and even then, over long distances the kill probability was much lower than in WT.
As long as the game doesn’t change and we don’t get appropriate CMs the multipath is needed.
Whilst yes, Multipathing probably shouldnt be a factor for a lot of missiles. Many do still have a min alt from the prox fuse related issues. Skyflash for example was 33m and AMRAAM I think is 40m. (though FA2 + AMRAAM had a specific design requirement for engaging sea skimming missiles, so there is certainly a lot more going on than just a flat min alt)
Now whether they should swtich from MP being the limiting factor or model the prox fuse issue is a discussion to be had, but there would nonetheless be a minimum altitude for a lot of missiles
But the most advanced missiles like Meteor, probably can mitigate both greatly.
This is especially true if the battle is closer. At close range, enemy radar attenuation is smaller, making any jamming more difficult. This environment should have only motivated the development of more advanced ECM. Towed decoys were not provided. I have never seen a manual that requires the use of multipath.
Why bother with multipath? At this point we have everything we need: a radar to detect attacks, a RWR, and a control stick to move the aircraft. This should be all you need.
Yes, in that case the missiles would not be sucked into the ground, but would be projected directly at the enemy and detonated by a proximity fuse, instead of being pulled to the ground and attacking the void like in the current WT. Am I wrong?
Im not exactly sure what the “prox fuse issues” exactly are. Its possible that the missile would just self destruct or miss the target as the prox fuse didnt go off, but it wouldnt be pulled towards the ground like a giant magnet.
though I think the point Khorne was making, is that some missiles being able to engage very low and others not being able to be used below maybe a few 100 metres could create some major issues.
So a universal standard for all is boring, but is probably the best solution. That being said. Lowering it to 40-45m would probably be enough for now