They then would have to ungimp all the other fox 3s, most notably; aam-4, PL-12 and Mica EM.
Seems like both the R-77 and 77-1 are pretty gimped too.
2 Likes
Mica EM is already been “ungimped” it’s the only one of the modern ARH that has a unique seeker and is far harder to notch than the others which all share a seeker.
They really need to now do the same for all others and give them all unique seeker performance
5 Likes
I mean yea, but afaik it is also missing a lot of range
3 Likes
This is just an issue with most missiles in WT, some like SRAAM are only half their actual range
They all are. Even AMRAAM is strictly speaking missing quite a bit of performance at long range. We have 3 or 4 reports for It being far more effective at long range than it is Vs targets maneuvering
2 Likes
I think this is slightly different.
SRAAM was modeled with the best available information at the time and simply never got updated when new information was found.
I think with all BVR missiles (SARH and ARH) the code fails and a lot of missiles loose a lot of range through things like drag and wobble. Far more than they should. I’d guess that every ARH missile is underperforming by roughly the same amount in terms of range
1 Like
they should stop kneecaping aircraft and weapons just because they dont like them for all nations
1 Like
missiles wobble way too much in wt its crazy
They kneecap them for balance, though sometimes they do too much
it ends up being unbalanced in the end anyway why not give nations similar systems at the same time
Because it depends on the vehicle they want to add, the potential gap it could fill in a certain nation, how they would implement it…
id rather them not implement things that aren’t going to be represented well if they decide to just kneecap something like a plane missing features it had when other airframes in game have the same features already implemented it just doesn’t make any practical sense
Sure as long as it doesn’t become op and doesn’t break the game’s balance.
They can’t lower it until they fix the 50m tall mega trees.
1 Like
So what you’re saying is that you want the amazing NATO equipment to get an increase in BR and that the flying dumpster soviet planes should get reductions in BR? That’s what I’m hearing you saying. BRs are supposed to be based off of aircraft performance and not years of introduction after all.
We must be playing 2 different games. I’ve never had any issues with trees being so tall
Not that I rely heavily on MP
4 Likes
There are still plenty of trees on the maps that are equal in size to the statue of liberty. Go try flying into the tops of some and check your radar altimeter. Some are at least 40+m tall. Multipathing may start at 60, but the effect doesn’t get strong enough to seriously defeat missiles until the ~50m mark. The giant trees reduce the multipathing height to an effective 10m on a lot of maps since you only have the sliver of height between the treetops and 50m to work with.
In SB at the very least. I can happily average 100ft on every map in something like the tornado Gr4. And in RB I’ve never felt that it was impossible to stay all that low.
Though should just learn to terrain mask and notch+chaff rather than only using MP
Multipahing is just one tool in the toolbox, but really gaijin should have an intern spend an afternoon fixing their map assets. They’re objectively not scaled correctly.
1 Like
Potentially, but i digress. If gaijin adds a new vehicle it should be accurate to real life and if proven wrong through bug reports they should fix them, altough types of ordnance should be limited in certain conditions.
No more dual racks for the Sukhoi. I don’t think that somebody will enjoy an F-15C with the AMBER. That would come to around 16 AMRAAMs?
1 Like