Sorry for being too direct. What I meant is that if players want more dogfighting in the game, you can easily return to the lower SARH missile BR. I play it myself often and this gameplay is indeed attractive.
But with FOX3 being launched for more than a year, is it really good to continue the previous SARH missile gameplay with ARH missiles?
In concept, it is no less than flying the F-4E MiG-23M but still using the gun as main gameplay.
Stock chaff is mostly for if gaijin decides to make ARH missiles have unique seekers (like MICA and AIM-120C have currently) to better decoy them when defeating the missile kinematically isn’t possible. It’s currently too easy to defeat ARH by notching, so if that changes then chaff needs to be unlocked from stock in order to counteract that.
60m multipath is fine and should stay as it is.
Yes, It enables under powered planes to get something done in the match while still keeping radar missiles a credible threat if the player doesn’t adapt to the enemy.
Removal of multi pathing would be fine but it should only come with a heavy revamp of game mode, battle ratings and match maker.
Realism such as everybody flying 2 inches from the ground in war thunder sim? Yeah no, no multipsth would be more realistic than the multipath we have ingame
Id say, drop it to 40m in ASB, and then work on refinements for ARB to eventually drop it down to 40m in that gamemode too
40m is close enough to IRL for a lot of things to be somewhat accurate, and maybe switch it to a per-missile basis in the future
They have to do more gardening work on the maps before 40m multipathing would be acceptable. Most maps still have way too many unrealistically large trees.
However, I do agree that the multipathing effect should vary depending on the radars and missiles.
Yes for ASB, but no for ARB.
Multi pathing itself is a phenomenon that can happen in real life, so I don’t agree that it should be completely removed, but it is very exaggerated in the game. It should be reduced further at the same time that the inverse monopulse seeker is modeled in the game.
And I hope that people will like maps such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Spain even more because they are actually good maps for learning terrain masking.
20 meter multipath in some random mobile game
Those who advocate the need for multipath claim that “multipath is a real phenomenon.”
That is certainly true.
But it is a terrible insult to think that real-world scholars think of it as envious without doing anything to counter it.
If reality was dominated by multipath like WT, they would have all developed technology to keep aircraft in the multipath area, and would have pushed forward with the development of IR missiles because radar missiles are useless.
But that hasn’t happened, and in reality engineers are competing to develop higher, stealthier, and more powerful radar missiles.
This is proof that multipath is not absolute in modern times like WT (I won’t write the specifics because they have already been shown).
And WT needs to be developed as close to reality as possible based on the submitted real-world materials.
Therefore, multipath should be removed immediately.
If possible, I would like to add a status for each missile indicating whether it has countermeasures against multipath, but if that is not possible, we should no longer trash the top-tier battlefield by pointing out a silly phenomenon for the sake of some SARH users.
Certainly the stock and SARH performance issues need to be resolved, but the solution should never come from multipath.
I can kinda agree but if you’re really about realism then it should be per missile (incl. fox 1’s) that are more modern and have better seeker/radar and arcade should have the locked 60m-100m multi path height. I agree that bvr can be boring for some but most planes that are a br high enough to face fox 3’s have chaff and I have to say notching in this game is easy once you learn it. Plus if they add more maps with actual geography you can terrain mask as well
The issue is per-missile [which is 30 - 40 meters for AIM-120C5] is that’s in games where you’re in first person view where 40 meters looks like a lot.
In 3rd person view 60 meters looks less than 40 meters.
Multipath should never be removed entirely. If anything multipath should depend on the individual radar and missile combinations, however Gaijin doesn’t model that stuff currently.
The multipath threshold could certainly be moved even lower, but not as long as maps are filled with 30-40m tall trees. There should also should be more maps with complex terrain as cover. Maps like Pyrenees, Rocky Pillars and Mysterious Valley are amazing, because they allow players to approach the battlefield without constantly being tracked and they have opportunities to evade missiles by using the terrain.
If you desperately want to do BVR, nobody is stopping you from climbing and engaging the other BVR players.
Eradicate multipathing.
Self report.
100% true and based.
If possible, I would like to add a status for each missile indicating whether it has countermeasures against multipath,
Even if multipath is removed, there is nothing to prevent you from doing dogfights if you want to, notching, drag, terrain masking, all the means for approaching remain.
On the other hand, after I win the BVR, there is no way to fight someone who uses a multipath barrier. All missiles, including the AMRAAM, MICA, and R-77, are blocked by multipath and are unable to cause any damage. If I did not take the foolish step of using multipath, which is unbecoming of Gen4, the enemy missiles fired from behind the multipath barrier would ignore all energy differences and turn the tables, causing me to lose. Otherwise, I have no choice but to give up the battle and abandon my allies.
Is this really a battle of Gen 4 fighters?
Are they going to throw the high altitude performance of the F-15, the speed performance of the Typhoon, and the many R-77s on the Su-30 into the gutter and just crawl on the ground?
It’s time to encourage Gen4 fighter jets to fight in a way that is appropriate for Gen4.
Not only are there plenty of planes that are unable to properly notch and terrain mask, not all planes are on equal footing and a lot of the time, these planes have no choice except for multipathing.
If maps had more complex terrain and trees weren’t so massive, sure, they could terrain mask (I mean, they already are trying to do that, as the 60m multipath threshold means that you have to adjust to slopes very quickly), but as it stands, maps tend to be mostly flat with 30-40m tall trees and next to no cover to make use of.
You still have IR missiles and guns.
War Thunders gameplay hasn’t really evolved beyond late props/early jets. People have been saying this ever since missiles and supersonic planes have been introduced.
The Planes only scale up to the korean era and rarely ever do anything, even though they have the capacity to actually attack players and AI in general has turned into actual SL/RP pinatas (on non-EC maps at least), as it mostly ignores the players. Battlefield AA doesn’t attack unless provoked, bases have no AA in high tier and the removal of AI v AI kill ticket drain means the planes can be completely ignored.
The carriers and additional airfields could allow for more spread out matches, but Gaijin is removing the ability for naval planes to spawn on the carriers and apparently they still haven’t thought of giving subsonic high BR planes the ability to spawn on the forward airfields.
Airfields cannot be destroyed in high tier and I’m not sure if objectives like “help AI capture location” can even be fulfilled or if they actually end up doing something after being completed and usually matches end before the attacking AI can even get close to reaching their main objective.
You can tell that the game evolved beyond what was initially planned by just looking at how most maps are constructed and how small a lot of them are. The terrain is very simple and doodads (buildings, trees, etc) are not scaled properly and in many cases not even placed right as most of it was literally just eye-candy.
Before SARH missiles were introduced people had no incentive to fly as low as possible and if next to nobody flies that low, well, there is no need to work on more complex terrain and better doodad scaling and placement.
If WVR combat wasn’t appropriate for Gen4 and newer, then why do these planes still carry guns and WVR missiles?
Nobody is forcing you down to the deck to dogfight them though, you can just stay high and let them come to you, go for some other higher target or just take the low flying target out when they are vulnerable. Yet you want to force the other people to always play your fight.
Low flying targets are usually easy kills anyway even with multipathing.
They could mention the presence (or lack) of an (inverse) monopulse seeker on the statcards of the missiles, as that is the main way multipathing is being dealt with IRL.
In-game all (S)ARH missiles behave as if they had an inverse monopulse seeker currently, which is why pre-AIM-7M SARH missiles can properly track at altitudes below 400m in WT.