The whole post is about 2.29.0.75 → 2.29.0.79.
A section of that post (2.29.0.77 → 2.29.0.78) contains the FM changes
1 Like
Added CLOG and screenshot from that ER miss on me to the bug report
That is not really sufficient. I might not be a pro 1v1 player, but I still sometimes play tournaments. But even outside of them, the smallest changes in rating performance will determine a rate fight.
I don’t have a controller, and negative pitch literally is not even close to being as efficient as actually pulling less. Try to achieve anything better than 18 seconds (time it usually takes to do 360 by just pulling) at 650 kph, min fuel sea level using mouse aim only… remember that with full real you can easily get 16.7 seconds at that speed and under 16,3 second if you watch speed and altitude very closely…
I don’t think it’s remotely important to have such precision in air RB…
Even the relatively old AIM-7E-2 without a monopulse seeker was able to hit targets down to 100ft in tail aspect, nvm stuff like the AIM-7M/AIM-54C which are drastically underperforming
But yes, non-monopulse seekers do suffer at low alt compared to monopulse seekers. The difference is non-monopulse seekers also suffer at high alt. Its random missile failures from conical scan seekers, along with other random missile failures gaijin has removed, because random rng is pretty unfun
I’m down to see how it goes, recommend a cheap controller if you need the precision that badly.
You have to be joking. A single degree per second will give a noticeable advantage in a rate fight, and you want to tell me that having a seizure while you fly is a decent solution?
2 Likes
A single degree per second would still require over 3 minutes of rating at that perfect rate speed to get on the enemies tail from across the circle. Its not really that noticeable… particularly since that only actually applies if you both manage to maintain optimal rate speeds and the enemy dos literally nothing to combat your rate advantage
I don’t get why you are so against it… it wouldn’t prevent anyone from flying with normal mouse aim
2 Likes
It’s not 1 degree/second, it’s 1.7 second faster turn time aka over 2 degrees/second
1 Like
Was just giving an example of the margins at play here
A 69% hit rate below the recommended 5000ft optimal floor, all the way down to 100ft for the AIM-7E-2 isn’t exactly “throwing a rock at the sky and eventually hitting a plane”.
I’m not opposed to changes I’ll never use… just trying to rationalize any reason not to add it the same way gaijin will.
Anyway I can confirm that, at least as far as slow speed rating goes, there’s no difference compared to before
I find it hard to believe they tested that many times against targets flying that low over land.
source for this? Seems bs to me
I literally just posted it: Improvements to War Thunder's missile and radar simulation - #92 by Flame2512
Even counting the hardware failures, it still exceeded 50% hit rate.
Either way, I’m all for them increasing multipath error on non-monopulse missiles, but they need to bring it to realistic/reasonable levels on more advanced monopulse missiles. This trash hypercrutch is killing planes like the Tornado F.3 which rely on their missiles actually working.
This issue is going to be even worse whenever they add Fox 3’s if they allow the multipath hypercrutch to persist.
The F-4F ICE is basicly DOA if the multipath issue isnt fixed (imagine playing a meh airframe at 11.0 all the way up at 12.3+ just to have the only reason you’re at 12.3 be defeated by a plane flying a bit low lmao), so is the AV-8B, the panavia Tornado, and all other gen 3+ aircrafts with improved radars/avionics and radar missiles.
Having a 100% guaranteed perfect way to protect yourself from any and all radar missiles that ALSO has no significant disadvantages as both the spotting system and contrails also favors you flying low is trash game design, and is the sole deciding factor for the current garbage top tier lawnmower meta
1 Like
Goalposts. Suddenly it’s about every hit below the 5000ft optimal floor. We’re talking about you bringing up one documented hit in tests at 100ft tail aspect. You shape language in your response to imply that this hit rate is broadly applicable without acknowledging that the 50% hit rate is for all tests below the optimal floor, with no data on the spread of altitudes and conditions for this hit rate. You would not get that 50% hit rate at 100ft.
1 Like
The way you’ve conducted your discourse speaks volumes, you’ve still yet to provide sufficient evidence to fix the purported issue or it would have been fixed.
Highly recommend we stop this discussion or move it to a relevant thread. (I’ve flagged his post as inappropriate).