I mean… the code used in-game for TWS target updates does fundementally work in a similar way to P-track…
P-track works by “jumping” the radar to the expected location of a tracked target for a split second when the radar crosses said location in azimuth during the scan. Functionnaly acting as its own dedicated “beam” for the target.
TWS ESA works in-game by having a discreet background scan occuring at the same time as the normal TWS scan. Said discreet scan covers the entire radars gimbal limits and updates all previously tracked target, doing so in extremely short periods of time, which is a rather ingenious way to code individual beams for target tracking in-game imo.
P-track on a mechanical radar can handle less targets simultaneously and is slower than an AESA, since it only “jumps” the radar when crossing the targets in azimuth, but functionnaly modelling it in-game using the TWS ESA code with a longer update time is an easy stopgap measure and also prevents gaijin from having to add an AESA Typhoon with a vastly superior radar that isnt even actually in service with any of the nations that would use it in-game yet apparently. 2 seconds is the time the CAPTOR-M takes to cross the entire gimbal limits in azimuth, so its the obvious choice for an update rate for the theoretical P-track in-game.
And dont bother using the excuse “we either model a mechanic in a fully functional way, or not at all”, cuz that whole argument falls appart from the fact the devs decided to model “LDIRCM” on helicopters before they’ve figured out how to make it only able to jam 1 missiles per emitter, and before they’ve figured out how to make the laser not pass through the helicopters body, doubling the coverage of the LDIRCM system, making the whole implementation of the “LDIRCM” system more aking to a literal anti-missile forcefield from science fiction than a functional IR countermeasure with very obvious limitions (ignoring the faft it was proven over and over again that it should not work against things like the IRIS-T). It was admitted that the modelling of it in-game is incorrect but that correct modelling “may be implemented in the future”
So now we have 3 F&F armed helicopters in-game that are functionnaly immune to all GBAD at top tier barring SACLOS systems, and that have been terrorizing the game since their addition alongside the functional anti-missile forcefield the devs thought it was ok to add, and the devs seem to have no issue with this and show no rush in trying to properly model those systems, but you’re going to split hairs on modelling P-track using thr TWS ESA code as a stopgap measure because it would update more targets than it should irl?
Would it even do that? Isnt there a limit to the number of contacts they can track currently? Or do they just figure its high enough that that count simply wont happen in game and thus is ignored?
as far as I can tell, there are no limits set for the number of targets fastTWS can update. It just checks if the target was already picked up by the radar, and if so, updates the track.
Fair enough then, though im sure it wouldnt take them that long to add if they really wanted as (again correct me if im wrong) there is target limits for TWS? Surely the same would be applicable
I mean, maybe, but you’re talking about the devs that will let a bug sit for years when literally all it requires to fix it is changing 1 value in the code.
If we can’t trust the devs to take 30 seconds to fix a bug that many players could fix for them in under a minute, why would you ever expect them to spend the time to do anything more in-depth unless its on a whim, or for a vehicle they love like the Rafale.
Its probably going to be SPICE 250 or something like that. They’ve already said many times that FNF Brimstones are too advance for the game with no way to counter them. Considering they can’t even code LDIRCM to work properly, makes me believe its nothing more than a IR Guided Bomb rather than FNF Brimstones.
I don’t want to spoil it for you, but of the Fuji aircraft, only the Fuji T-1 and Fuji L-19 had armament (the Fuji L-19 is a license-built Cessna aircraft, suitable for Br 1.0). However, there are other Japanese trainers, such as: Kawsaki T-33A, Kawasaki XT-4, Mitsubishi FS-T2 Kai (though not exactly), De Havilland D.H.115 Vampire T Mk.55, Mitsubishi F-104DJ, Mitsubishi F-15DJ, Mitsubishi F-2B.
Good, for you if you get the Harrier, I don’t care if the UK gets either, I’m more then find with Indian Rafale, better than Soviet tech at least. Both those things fall under additions I don’t care about as I don’t play those BRs/game modes.
I stay not doing well in my Hornet, well more focussing on playing stuff like the Ram I more.
I’m just saying the stuff that more likely to come soon, most of the aircraft I want to come haven’t even been thought of by Gaijin since the Gripen C came for “South Africa” but they might as well have said British Gripen as we haven’t gotten a new aircraft for South Africa since the Superhind year and a half ago, which isn’t even super unique like the prototype Rooivalks
And you mention the Bronco, I want the Bronco II/Mwari as well as the OV-10
