The realistic situation of multipathing is removed for the unrealistic game mode known as arcade battles.
Go play that if you don’t want realism.
The minimum altitude for a missile like Skyflash was determined not by Multipathing but by the prox fuse triggering on the ground. (33m iirc)
60m is, without a doubt, far far higher than it should be for missiles developed in the 1970s.
Modern missiles like AMRAAM? Would have to assume they can at least match the performance, if not maybe better it.
Perhaps not outright removal, but certainly continued and significant reduction in MP height would be 100% realistic and MP height should be set on a missile by missile basis. Some would be more affected than others, but it would further mitigate the ability to use it as a primary form of defence
Because this… is just stupid
2 Likes
60 meters is realistic so long as trees are taller than they should be and JF-17 is larger than it should be.
JF-17’s model needs to be fixed as well as tree height.
Either way 60 meters is more realistic than not.
2 Likes
Except. 60m is unrealsitic.
Arcade should keep 60m and Realistic and Sim should get much lower MP heights.
5 Likes
Arcade should have it removed entirely.
So you want the unrealistic gamemode to be realistic and the realistic gamemodes to be unrealistic?
6 Likes
Yes, but at same time as more comprehensive countermeasures for aircraft
Multipath is a real situation.
Also before missile unique properties we need ECM and better chaff simulation.
4 Likes
It could probably be reduced to 40 or even removed entirely in sim at the moment.
It’s so dumb that you can be immune by flying low, and removing it will promote actual skill.
2 Likes
already terrifying
3 Likes
Multipathing is a realistic feature, but it varies missile to missile. I doubt that an Aim-120 would have the same MP level as an Aim-7D, or even an R-24R.
3 Likes
I think the ultimate implementation would be a per missile basis. Some it would basically be nothing, others it would actually have a meaningful impact. Might cause a few balancing issues, but for the most part, shouldnt as the missiles most affected by MP would also have radars likely without PD and so just as affected by ground clutter.
I don’t think you know how much skill is required to fly low…
Also AIM-120 has a 40 meter limit until C-6 or C-7.
They should model all types of countermeasures with more detail at the same time as this
I can quite happily cruise along at 50ft / 15m all day long in SB and never had an issue with hugging the deck. 60m is stupidly easy.
Source? a YF-12 firing an AIM-47 at mach 3.2 hit a flying target only 152m over ground in 1960’s, but you don’t think AIM-120C-5 from 2000’s can do below 40m, with all the advancement since 1960’s, especially in electronics?
1 Like
Not very much considering most maps have large and flat areas. It’s only “difficult” on Spain, Golan Heights, and Vietnam, and 2 of those maps are part ocean, while the last is still flat enough. Even the mountainous maps we have still have huge areas that are completely flat.
I agree.
Sim is ways worse imo because people love to play Denmark, Maginot Line, Tunisia which is basically flat.
1 Like
Until you meet those 40m high trees.
2 Likes
No, multipath is fine, if you want to play a MPless game go play dcs or nuclear option.
The removal of MP would only lead to pussy f14 syndrome aka spam missiles then rtb.
Unironicaly removal of MP would kill jet tiers because the match would be won by whoever has the longest range missile, this would make some planes useless bc their missiles dont have the range. Move them down and then they slam people, then repeat.
Leave MP as it is
4 Likes