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).
“Fuse failure” implies the fuze was bad, the fuze and radar guidance are separate as well, that isnt a monopulse vs con-scan issue.
Seeing as there are 3 missiles that specify “guidance failure” its hard to imagine the missile that has “reason unknown” was also a guidance failure, but sure, it COULD be due to multipath, could also not be, and it seems the ppl conducting the test werent sure enough to attribute it to guidance issues either.
The “no return” missile specifies it did not even return MBC, so ima go on a whim and say clutter wasnt the issue and something with the actual radar receiver wasn’t working properly on that one.
Literally never said con-scan missiles didnt suffer guidance degradation at low alts
Yes that works, if you have the ingame screenshot and the CLOG from that session please add them to the report.
Yep they’re in there
@MythicPi Please dial back the confrontational language. It’s not productive. There is no need for those comments.
7 Likes
Can you DM me the link again I’ll check it out tomorrow.
Fair enough
1 Like
Thank you.
1 Like
On a good note, AoA is much better than before. MiG-29 is able to Cobra from slower speeds (200-250 knots) and is no longer going to enter into unrecoverable spins. A realistic amount of instability and adverse yaw / roll is still present which is good.
-edit- just got done doing some testing, it’s fantastic in terms of AoA in dogfights. Should be good to go again in sim, no more unrecoverable spins from a single horizontal pull.
Oh, and it appears the SMT can Cobra as well.
1 Like
I have noticed from preliminary testing ITR has decreased by around .5 deg/s at all speeds so I think it a report on turnrate to be readjusted to account for the new weight is in order
@Giovanex05 was gonna get around to testing the turn rates I think, my focus was on not dying to unrecoverable flatspins in an airframe designed to recover from deep stalls easily.
A very important element of the RB is the ability to experience real air combat without sticks, track IR, etc.
The ability to limit the AOA (personally I would like to limit the Gs at high speeds as well, like the F16 before it) is very important on that basis
As others have already mentioned, the current mouseaim system requires very complex inputs to add or subtract turning performance, and being able to consolidate it into a single key is great. Of course, there is also the option of not using this feature (ideally, the option to not use it exists in the options section).
And even if restrictions such as AOA are not actually that flexible, just keeping the appropriate angle, for example 12 degrees of AOA for F16, is effective enough
I already have a head tracking system on my joystick and play SB, DCS, etc., but RB is great because I don’t have to put them in place and can easily play with my mouse or keyboard
The changes. is it live?! is it live?! Just got home or …
Looks like I cannot lock targets in IRST HMS beyond 10km (15km-20km) and launch ETs in a head on through clouds anymore or switch to ERs… there goes those free kills.