The altitude of the launcher?
I didn’t talk about that…
I was always talking about the low altitude of the side using multipath.
Because the altitude of the launcher doesn’t affect the occurrence of multipath.
The aren’t guaranteed to hit problem due to multipath was eliminated with the advent of monopulse, but as it stands, it is invincible to all radar missiles at distances of less than 60m.
As long as you maintain 60m (or only at the moment of impact), you can attack the enemy with a radar missile without any other evasion/withdrawal required and without risking being defeated by the enemy with a radar missile. The only solution to this is to remain in the multipath.It ruins everything before that, and only allows equal merges that cannot secure air combat energy. If you try to merge while securing energy superiority, the higher altitude side will lose due to the imbalance of the multipath barrier.
There was no game where you lost if you secured altitude anywhere except under the top tier multipath.
Remove multipath and the top tier should be in the same state.
No reason to abandon all other options and sacrifice those who are not affected by multipath.
All radar missiles in WT behave as if they had inverse monopulse seekers, the multipath threshold exists for gameplay reasons.
From my experience as the player almost always flying low I can assure you that there indeed is a risk of being defeated by enemy radar missiles involved while staying below 60m. Multipath doesn’t protect you from splash damage and missiles fired from certain angles are much more likely to hit targets even when they are below the multipath threshold.
If you approach low flying planes from above at an angle from which your target can guide and fire missiles at you without having to climb, that’s your own fault. As the one that’s attacking from above you also have a much easier time evading incoming missiles, no matter if they are radar guided or IR homing.
Don’t lie, WT still doesn’t support Inverse monopulse seekers.
If a monopulse is present, multipath from any angle, including those not originating at high altitude, is ignored.
When a missile is launched from a high altitude, it appears as if it ignores the multipath, but only because the mirror image of the multipath is adjacent to or hidden under the real image.
It does not actually ignore the multipath.
Furthermore, at the distance at which such a trajectory occurs, even an upward attack from the enemy is within effective range, so the attack will only be successful if the opponent fails to counterattack.
My argument is that the reason they were shot down despite the multipath barrier was because they were unable to even notice enemy aircraft firing Contrails at close range.
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
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