in my opinion even staying at 13.0 wouldn’t be that bad or wrong.
I mean, they do tho. The AMRAAM’s seeker and kinematic range vs both maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets have been bug reported with airtight primary sources and accepted, but gaijin has refused to buff them for whatever reason.
Theres also the more recent case of smokeless motors being nerfed to be more visible (defeating the purpose of them in the first place while also making the missiles look incredibly stupid in-game since the change).
IRIS-T SLM just had its seeker range dropped from 10km (which was already too low) to 4km (a MASSIVE nerf) with the devs outright lying about it by saying its to “improve its resistance to IRCM”, which is a total lie.
Witholding a buff or buffs from a missile is fundementally the same as nerfing it in the case of the 120’s, and in the case of the smokeless missile nerf and the IRIS-T SLM, gaijin has very much, and very recently, nerfed missiles directly with no actual source to back the nerf either.
The MICA and the Rafale are just gaijins favourite child, exception to all rules and exempt from all bug report scrutiny.
3 Likes
A report being accepted doesn’t mean it will get fixed right away. Many also mistake the “accepted as suggestion” as if it’s going to be fixed when in fact those that are accepted that way are not good enough to be straight forward fixes but can be used by the DEV’s together with other sources to maybe get a ballpark of what something should be. it’s often not enough on it’s own or is a thing that’s up to DEV discretion in the first place.
I have no idea about the reports on AMRAAM but you can always PM a Technical Moderator to ask if there are any updates to a reports progress.
That’s game convention though and not a specific munitions characteristic.
There are zero shown sources (and i have been helping quite a bit in the search for info about this missile) about when it sheds its nosecone. zero available information means that this:
Applies.
Unfortunatley this happens often, which leads to a prevalent ammount of half baked features.
I’m not saying that it’s a good idea to buff brimstones since it would be unparalleled, yet, they could be oversimplified and given some type of fire and forget capability, just like how ccip and ccrp gps bombs work in war thunder its oversimplified.
Other types of features or mechanics missing?
B66 radar turret gone, reduce to atoms.
Strv 103 dual engine layout? 1 Engine, take it or leave it.
Type 25 RCV (P) MASSIVE TELESCOPIC SIGHT? Engine limitations.
Regenerative steering? That’s too damn bad.
Apus? one of the main things about the Leo2a7 powerpack? No where to be seen.
Data link? Not here either.
TONS MORE TO LIST.
Gaijin does not accept bug reports based on data mines.
Just like how Spanish avenger has tried for YEARS to fix the type 90s steering gaijin doesn’t accept her bug reports since most of the innacurate information that she tries to point out come from datamines.
Like wise, the drag coeficient from the original r77 came from data mines so they were not accepted.
This is a big can of worms which i dont agree with in a lot of cases.
Challenger 3td still not in service same thing with the 2s38 but you can understand the desicion to a certain extent.
But these?:
For example Sweden has the Mi28, why? Because they trialed it
Same thing with the copy pasted wrong varient of the oplot for China vis Pakistan.
Makes no sense in my opinion.
And if you apply that line of reasoning then 90% of top tier would have BOL pods and other prototype munitions.
1 Like
The seeker bug report im describing regarding the AMRAAM is pretty cut and dry on what the seekers beamwidth is, ±6° vs the current in-game ±15° and the MICA’s ±7°. Its a VERY easy fix.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QhYDPYj3LIRl
Its also been bug reported for over a year now, so the whole “not gonna get fixed right away” comment when its such an easy fix on a very obvious cut and dry issue thats been open this long and effects like, half of top tier BLUFOR jets in-game, is a trash argument despite being “technically” true.
Thats utter garbage as an argument and you know it. They caved the SLM’s proverbial skull in because it was outperforming the other AA’s and are actively pretending its “actually a buff”. They arent even using your argument that theres no info so a nerf is justified, they are actively pretending its not a nerf at all and its actually a buff.
Im not gonna waste my time with you if thats what you’re gonna pull as an “argument”
4 Likes
I’m with you on this one, i’ve stated that previously as well. I would personally rather wait for longer to get a more complete addition. But not everyone agrees with that and they are allowed to have that opinion.
I’ve no comments on the list of missing mechancis other than this one:
It was recently added together with the EldE 98 because it was completely unusable without it, i hope they are planning on expanding the function and adding it to more vehicles. More info in this thread: ( We discovered that a "Double differential steering system" exists in the game and can be applied to user models )
Same, we all have our opinions on specific things in that area.
1 Like
Retracted statement
I agree :D
1 Like
I can’t see the sources in that report, but since it has been accepted i assume the sources are valid.
Personal Speculations below:
I don’t know exactly how Gaijin handles things like these but most games of this nature go from area to area and doesn’t jump randomly from vehicle to vehicle and munition to munition from an arbitrary list of reports by going from the top of the list and down. Instead most games work on a rotation, so like they check a set of vehicles and look at all the reports and information about those vehicles and fix as much as possible al att the same time. Then they jump to the next set and do the same. This will also result in things where a report is sent shortly after that area has already been through rotation so it’s going to take a long while before they get back to that area. So even if it’s like one number in the code that would take 30 seconds to change they might not work in that way.
Again, i don’t know if Gaijin works with a system like that but it wouldn’t be unheard of if they do.
Everyone is of course free to think what they want about working in that way and there are likely better systems as well. I personally fully understand the frustration, i have my own reports that are years old at this point.
I also want to point out that i’m not in general arguing for or against how Gaijin handles things unless i explicitly state so. Everything i say tends to be just mater of fact and how things currently are/work either from personal experience or actual knowledge. I try my best to specify when things i say are opinions/speculation/fact but if something is unclear please ask and i shall clarify. My title as Game Master only means i handle in-game chat and name bans, it doesn’t mean i have any powers or extra knowledge outside of that area due to the title, all info i have is things i have found publicly available or have personally come to the conclusion on based on available information.
Let me answer right away:
-
Instead of nerfing or removing MICA-EM missiles, the idea of a map where they would be less dominant could only have come from a French player. New maps just for fighting these missiles? Come on, man, do you think the problem is the maps?
-
I don’t have a problem with the use of AIM120-A, B, and C missiles in general. The main problem for me is the missile’s general inaccuracy. I think they’ll fix this. And even if it doesn’t, it won’t be much; the AIM120-X missiles will replace them within a few updates at most.
-
We agree that there’s a difference between the real-life accuracy of the MICA-EM missile and other missiles. But of course, things change at this point. Accuracy can be high, and I don’t see any problem with it. But it’s almost impossible to achieve the same accuracy as in the game. So, either the plane I’m using is broken, or your missiles are God-guided.
-
And that’s what I’m talking about. A French player naturally doesn’t want the MICA-EM missile to be nerfed. Because it would both ruin your gameplay and reduce your enjoyment of the game. Also, I’m not talking about your dogfighting abilities in the game. I’m talking about real pilots in a dogfight in real fighter jets. If that were the case, RAFALE fighter jets would most likely be facing fighter jets like the F-22 and F-35, not the F-16 and F-18. We know that in such a situation, the Rafale pilot would croak before even seeing them. If you ask them if they won’t engage with weapons, things change. Again, I don’t even need to mention the F-22’s superiority. What you call a dogfight—exhausting your own fighter jet’s MICA-EM missiles by flying high, then swooping down and shooting down a plane that’s engaging your teammates or an already damaged plane with your weapon—that’s not that difficult. Even my 7-year-old nephew can do it. You’re not doing anything extraordinary. I have no doubt that F-35 variants will one day be added to this game. You can use your MICRA-EM missiles to fight those aircraft. If you think there’s a problem with my argument, I can send you the results of a few games. Maybe you can see yourself there. I’d appreciate it if you could correct me if I’m wrong. Thank you.
1 Like
Yes. I wanted to give you a serious answer. Thank you for your comment.
in the other way :
Yak-141 recieving functionnal radar and R-27R / ER?
there is a lot of things that are done one way or another,…
we could go:
Super-Etendard not having access to Magic-2 (that it fielded in service)or AM.39B2 (despite aircrafts having such missiles in other TT : Japan / Germany)
Etendard IVM not having Magic-1 missiles (that it fielded in it’s late carreer)
So no,… you’re arguing, but you can’t make it change by announcing some BS they have done in one way, but ignore what they have done the other way!
the MICA seeker have been fixed through Bug-reporting,…
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7KW3j8QU5Rc?feature=share
5seconds
AUTO LOADER - every auto-loaders are getting similar reload time 4/5seconds (check russians)
about 5 seconds
Auto-loader of 4seconds
where are crew mens able to pullup a Rocket-shell of 376kg, that doesn’t show no handles?
you’re having a reload time that is clearly faster than Reality
based on?
Yak-41M’s prototypes never were armed, never had radar, never had IRST, never used HMS
you’re asking for a looppy-land Yak-141 that never existed fully in the first place.
as if it would change anything : we’re playing tanks at ranges of 0-1000m, with tanks able to penetrate others at ranges superior of 3000m!
F-117 is still balanced - IR missiles picks better than it picks at Su-39 with IRCM
i agree on Kh-38MT - should be withdrawn as it’s an entire speculation.
because many aircraft in the game shoud get update too, if this one is in,…
the Gaijin Devs thought that the tail radar was a front radar - and when showed wrong, they hide it.
it’s a Recon Vehicule,… that’s normal to have a good sight
can’t be done with actual game limitation (not in the way of having L.16)
btw, adding L.16 would allow Rafale MICA to get a 360° launch enveloppe - not really recommended.
- Not mainly for fight against these missiles, but mainly for add variety to gameplay, would you not like true EC in ARB it would change from the boring ARB that we have right where game last 5 to 10 minutes only after 12.0 BR ?
2.yeah could be cool to fix this inaccuracy.
- MICA are just hard to notch, it’s little like with aim 9M I would say you need to be constantly in evasive maneuver for evade it.
but yeah for sure could be a good thing for balnce if 120 could have much more accurate seeker.
4.oh it would be ok if they nerf MICA missile I will just play like I play my M2K-C, I will just play defensvly, it just a matter of adapting.
Yeah for sure F22 and 35 have advantage for BVR with there “passive” stleath, but yeah every 4.5 gen jet would have hard time against 5th gen in BVR.
And the things if tomorrow they add 5th gen, yeah during surely at more than 30-40km they stleath will work, but under 20km their stleath will change nothing, and since every ARB tend to be a furball at somepoint.
Multi-spawn in ARB is the worst thing to add.
Why, I would like to know ur POV ?
Also i’m ofc agree in the standard ARB we have rn it will be the worst thing to add.
we already have an example of an ARH missile that was nerfed without sources due to being the meta missile in game in the form of the amraam though
First and foremost I dont understand what you are tying to debate or not debate at all?
Yes?
in the other way :
Yak-141 recieving functionnal radar and R-27R / ER?
there is a lot of things that are done one way or another
That’s what I tried to point out. (I didn’t provide enough context)
The yak’s Irst was simply not even fitted at all, sure, the cutouts on the fuselage are there, yet, the sensors tha we have in game are a interpretation.
It’s hard to deny that, despite missing avionics if the yak41m were to be produced this would likely have been it’s sensor suite:
For example look at what these guys point out: Community Bug Reporting System
And when it comes to armament we can literally see it mounted on the wings:
Sure, we cant see the real armament release system seperation testing or it’s weapon integration results. (Kinda like the iranian f14 which couldn’t use r27s yet has it ingame.)
That’s the point I tried to make. Armaments on aircraft have no consistency, even fictitious things aren’t consistent either.
When it comes to reloads:
It’s hard to compare instances of manual loading (Are you lap loading?) (Blast door open?)
Manual loaders are suseptible to FATIGUE, Inertia of the vehicle, speed and terrain.
Gaijin does not model any of these things.
That’s why I compared the Chally and the M1a2 since the chally has 2 piece munitons which could speed up the reload but in game it doesn’t.
Sure an 18 Year old loaded up on Zyns can push out a round in less than 5 seconds but for how long? And under what conditions?
Strv 103: Strv103 wrong reload speed - #6 by Necronomica
We know that gaijin uses reload rates to balance there are dozens of these types of desicions taken.
Even necronomica who is in this same thread said it back in July.
Type 90 is 3.4 not 4
That’s why I mentioned it XD. 10 minute reload to 60 seconds is hilarious.
Is the f117 underperforming? YES. How can we buff it if we can’t back it up with a source? We just can’t.
Another reason why I mentioned it.
Yes, and that’s a conscious desicion to abandon the introduction of a new mechanic.
They didn’t even try a simplified way of buffing these types of aircraft b66/b29 by giving an artificial multiplier to gunner range or accuracy.
Whoops, mentioned the wrong light tank i meant to say the Type 25 RCV (P) my bad. With the big boy sight which currently does not work like it should.
Wasn’t that already in the dev server?
AGREED
Doesnt help that the rafale fm is absolutley busted.
With airshow video which a bit later showed a bingo fuel warning.
Used to estimate flight performance at 50% fuel.
Yeah from what i’ve understand bcause of the limitation of game engine the acceleration at supersonic speed are overperforming so it could reach is supercuise capability.
For the video airshow u talking about a report have been made few month ago and implemented this change (nerf to str of rafale in may or june)
1 Like