nah need to be 4.3
Battle Pass is gonna SLAP!!! Finally another pass I want to grind!
Event start.
Servers die.
Tragedy in 2 acts.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Recently a bug report was labeled as “fixed”. This was to do with gatewidth IRCCM, can you confirm if this change will be applied to all missiles with gatewidth IRCCM such as Stinger, Mistral, R-73, and etc?
Spoiler
FoV reduction incorrectly modeled for Magic 2 // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
This report (and thus the fix), apply to just Magic 2. Any other missiles with an incorrect FoV should be reported with the applicable sources.
1 Like
With Magic IIs getting another buff. Can we see some reports for other top tier IR missiles finally get fixed.
Like this 2+ year old report for Aim-9M lock ranges
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PX7CKrwWNGdr
or this year+ old report for Aim-9M push ahead
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3jdZd8ZGSdlK
(which doesnt sound all that far off the change the Magic II is geting)
Spoiler
Or even a few lower BR missiles too
Community Bug Reporting System
Well that is going to cause some friction. Anyhow, I hope you had a good holiday.
Magic 2 corrections are not linked to other missiles.
Right? and?
So is there a specific reason why the Aim-9Ms still have woeful lock ranges?
Magic IIs have gotten 2 notable buffs recently and MICA have also gotten quite a major buff recently. But 9Ms still have massively nerfed lock ranges.
And I was clarifying for you as you seemed to be under the assumption than when a missile in game has a report resolved, it is somehow connected or leads to another entirely separate missile and issue also being resolved. Which is not the case and has no connection or correlation.
I assumed all missiles and their related reports weren’t necessarily being actioned for the sake of maintaining the tenative balance we had at top tier.
Like how all ARH seekers were identical. That then change when MICA got a buffed seeker.
I’ve assumed that reports such as the Aim-9M improved lock ranges werent being actioned for the sake of game balance, but this is the second time now Magic II, which id argue was already stronger missile in a lot of situations, has gotten further buffs. ergo, clearly my originally guess that missile performance was being used as a soft balancing feature isnt actually the case.
Even at lower BRs, I assume the fact SRAAM still have 800m range instead of 2km range was entirely to do with game balance rather than anything else.
So I wonder why 2-3 year old bug reports have been forgotten for a number of missiles.
4 Likes
This would be an incorrect assumption.
This would also be incorrect. They are two entirely different missiles, with no connections to each other. Changes to one, do not lead to or mean anything for the other one.
Then can you nudge these 2-3 year old bug reports which have massive impact on their respective missiles performance then please.
The number of times i’ve had a target not just within range according to the radar, but well and truly inside the LSZ and not even the slighest whiff of a lock with the Aim-9M is frustrating as hell.
When we should be able to lock onto a reheat target in front aspect at 14.45km but can barely get a lock half the time at 3km is just kinda stupid.
3 Likes
Both have been nudged.
2 Likes
Thank you.
2 Likes
Would it be possible if you could nudge the AGM65 bug report, It would give AGM65s a much-needed buff considering how dominant kh38s are. AGM-65 Maverick likely incorrect flight performance // Gaijin.net // Issues
Or they should just remove paper weapons like KH-38MT and nerf AASM down to IRL performance and then AGM-65 would actually be pretty well balanced. Though AGM-65 being a little more consistant would be nice
1 Like
They could, but honestly, I don’t see them removing the fake weapon that KH38mts are. I do see them nerfing AASM though.