how its not comparable if the brimstone was added with SAL which is just one of the guidance metods for balancing reasons, the missile could still work with just one thats for sure, same case with the Python-4 it would still works excellent with just 1 IRCCM there is no need of two, the PL-8B have a dual band seeker the devs knows about that and it was added with FOV when it should have both and this was aknowledged by them via the report section if you dont remember smin, at the end of the day they know what they are adding and how they are adding them.
considering Spear Glide was denied which would be the exact same I would assume its the same
guys need to learn for the official news before asking about leaked stuff.
Another question is how many days do I wait to tell the CM if the senior mod refuses to response?
Its not comparable because SAL is one of the operating modes Brimstone can be used in.
Python 4 does not have a “mode” to just turn off its IRCCM. This is fictious.
Nothing to currently report as of right now.
But suggestion reports are always welcome to officially log them so they are publicly traceable none the less (for those that haven’t already been submitted).
A couple is reasonable.
1 Like
my screen is all blue
who knows? maybe the pilot wants to hit the flares
Though what is the line drawn by Gaijin?
For example Aim-9M should have more IRCCM modes such as Push ahead (reported 2 years ago) but currently is limited to Seeker shutoff. (let alone other attributes such as lock range)
The Aim-9M didnt operate on a single mode IRL, it used multiple together, but is fictiously limited to just one mode of operation.
Even the Aim-9L is underperforming considerably in the flare resistance environment with RAF docs show that it should be practically impossible to flare (even with LCMs) when on reheat, but in game its 1 tap flare 99% of the time.
Do I even need to mention BOL?
So where is the line? At what point does emphasis on realism end and decisions are made purely based upon gameplay?
3 Likes
well then a lot of IR missiles in the game with IRCCM are having right now a ficticious IRCCM a lot of missiles could not be working right now if we take seriously what you are saying. come on smin. pls. you know that what the devs said is a load of bs.
You are overlapping multiple different subjects and topics and applying them to a separate context.
If something is reported and open and has not yet received a dev response, then it has not yet been decided on and there is no answer I can provide you currently. Which you know already, as you have asked this before.
I know you’re being bombarded but any news on the AIM-9N-2 report by chance?
Please feel free to report any you believe are incorrect. Sadly this is going round and round in circles here regarding Python 4 however, which has now been answered, so the topic can return on track to its subject matter.
If there was, it would be updated in the report comments.
When a report has been sat accpeted for 2-3 years (and even bumped a few times) or even longer for a few. it is hard to accept any other fact than the devs have seen the report and decided to ignore it for the purposes of plausible deniability to maintain current performance.
2 Likes
Shame, well thanks
It’s even worse. They changed the IOG and shutoff behavior (much longer shutoff than before) of the AIM-9M and L/I in the last major update and it was nowhere represented in the changelogs AFAIK.
2 Likes
Anyone else want a IR missile or gun only mode for ARB to kinda spice things up with some different game modes? I know we have SEAD and such coming but its bed cool to see the snail try more game modes especially for air
Yeah, Ive felt they are a little different. Let alone the fact that the IRCCM just… doesnt work in front aspect. At all. The missile literally goes for flares.
Id try to bug report it, but it would probably either not be accepted (claiming that a primary source is needed to show the IRCCM works in front aspect) or sit in limbo for years
1 Like