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
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
Mate, this still is a game, not real life. Just because planes IRL didn’t have certain countermeasures when new weapons were conceived doesn’t mean that the planes ingame shouldn’t have them.
The multipath thing needs to and will stay forever, the thresholds may change however.
Not in an environment like the one WT creates. You have up to 16 players per team launching missiles at eachother, more often than not multiple players targeting the same plane. But I guess that is realistic in your mind and multipath being unrealistic is the problem, not the horrible game design.
I don’t know if you have ever thought about this, but do you really think your average player would enjoy having to fly defensive all day?
Most people don’t enjoy BVR as it is extremely monotonous. They want to get into WVR to do missile jousts, dogfights, turnfights, etc. they don’t want to launch a couple of missiles across the map and wait like 2 minutes for the missiles to arrive, they don’t want to notch and chaff everytime they get a launch warning (or a lock warning if their RWR doesn’t provide launch warnings).
You may not know, but you also have the same missiles. If you find it boring to keep defending, you can make the enemy defend you.
I enjoy it the most when I use missiles better than the enemy and get into a mounting position, but multipath ruins it…
What if someone argues that BnZ is boring with reciprocating engines, that P-51 should also get into dogfights with Zero, and that BnZ should be regulated? Multipath and WVR claims are always like that.
1 Like
Sending missiles up towards a target with altitude is a waste of missiles (unless your target is completely oblivious). I’ve been trying to tell you this, as the one coming from above you have an advantage, even if your target is below the multipath threshold. Not only do you have an easier time defending, you also get to dictate how your enemy has to approach you.
If you approach your enemy frontally, they won’t have to get out of the multipathing altitude, so that’s your mistake. If you approach them from a steep angle or from straight above you can force them to climb or to flee and if they flee you can just destroy them with IR missiles. If you refuse to bring IR missiles, then that is on you.
It is your unwillingness to adapt your strategy according to your enemies strategy and make use of your advantageous position, similar to how some high altitude prop fighter pilots just straight up refuse to swoop down when there are only low altitude fighters left in the enemy team.
You just seem to want people to get punished for playing planes that aren’t as well equipped for BVR as the competition or for flat out not enjoying the BVR gameplay cycle (flying defensively all the time, launching missiles that take minutes to arrive and re-arming constantly or merging with very few missiles and countermeasures left).
You can’t even wait for the gameplay to change to better suit these modern planes, for maps to offer more natural cover and better terrain masking opportunities or even for more appropriate countermeasures to be added before adjusting (or even removing, as you are demanding) the multipath effect.
Multipath can’t be 0m irl. This is simply because there is a certain beamwidth of the radar waves, forming a cone, the larger the cone, the larger the effect of multipath
. While it can be reduced to around 20m or 10m, it can’t be reduced to 0. And it’s fair to keep multipath at 50 - 60m rn for balancing reasons, we haven’t got ecm systems and towed decoys yet.
1 Like