Not really, the missile is hot garbage to the point of being unusable right now as is.
Removing multipath wont remove the fact that kinematicly it is still garbage in game, it will just allow the missile to actually be usable against something other than somebody in low earth orbit like they are now.
The 54C will still only be able to hit AFK or willingly dumb targets, fixing multipath on it wont make it better against anyone with half a brain.
That doesn’t matter when it can face Tornados and mig 21s
And?
My brother in Christ the 54 can be dodged just by turning 70 degrees at any point in the missile’s flight, if you cant do that any missile in the game can kill you easier, even a AIM-9B.
The AIM-54 is the easiest missile in the game to dodge as it is, if you cant that is a bonafied skill issue.
Remember the limiting factor is not the seeker on the 54, its the actual missile performance, the thing is a bus. It cannot track maneuvering targets, it cannot track low targets, it cannot be used at close range, it’s only use is shooting people who fly in a straight line in LEO, and doing that is asking to die to any other missile.
Once again, skill issue.
the 54 is made to kill bombers at high altitude, so rather bring that to the game, than trying to make it work against fighters
Obviously you will have to change how the gamemode works
reducing multipath to realistic level is ok, they should do it for all missiles… but there’s no such thing as doesn’t have multipath, you can’t avoid radio waves bouncing off the ground
fuck no. removing Multipathing is a bad Idea. i play this shit game since 2015 and when radar missiles got introduced people were having problems dodging them. with Multipathing 99% of the players are flying low.
Im a BVR player and yes i know how to evade Radar missiles at High Alt. Removing the Multipathing would mean massacre in WT since people will get slammed by a f14 or worse when the Amraams come in people will just get slammed and back to the hanger. if u wish to change multipathing to its realistic level, Gaijin will have to change the gamemodes and lots of shit. Meaning after 6 Years this whole thing gotta be remapped and reworked.
Multipathing can imo be added but the spotting system has to be reworked and more gamemodes ofc. When a teammate sees an enemy u can also see him from 80km. this is not how things should be. they have to be marked or something like in Sim battles. idc about hate comments or any other shit opinions at this post but ill gladly anwser questions.
How about “Remove multipathing (to their real/realistic levels ofc) off sim battles and make sim battles similar to DCS Growling Sidewinder server”?
Say that about the skyflash. It can’t even hit targets bellow 1km at the moment let alone 300m which is just fine for missiles like the r24r, and that’s ignoring the 7f and r27s…. But yes most sparrows apart from the 7ms are over performing as they never had the mono pulse upgrade the skyflash got. With the Russians I’m pretty sure it’s from the r24r onwards but it may even include the r23r. No idea about the French but it’s just ironic considering the skyflash does worse than sparrows it should be far better at for on the deck shots.
Removing multipathing is not only unrealistic, but also shit for gameplay.
Multipath effects very much still affect even modern ARH missiles, because even the best seeker can’t track a target accurately if the target doesn’t give off a clear return at all. You can’t just remove the physics of waves reflecting off solid surfaces.
Obviously, in reality it heavily depends on the structure and also the reflectivity of the ground under the target, while in War Thunder we have the blanket “always 100m” altitude where the effects occur, but that simplification makes gameplay much more cosnsistent, instead of it just being some RNG crapshoot where you just roll the dice depending on what groudn is currently below you if the missile will hit you at 3m above ground, or if it will multipath at 100m above ground.
While I agree that the whole IRCCM Fox 2 shit is very much annoying and not very skill-intesive, that could simply be fixed by just nerfing IRCCM to a point where you always have viable counterplay to an IR missile. However, IRCCM is an entirely different can of worms.
“BVR” fighting isn’t exactly skilled gameplay either; you could literally set up an Autohotkey macro that BVRs lol. If something can be done by a script that wouldn’t be much more complex than the bombing bots we already have, it’s shit gameplay.
The vast majority of the skill in this game’s gameplay comes from just having better awareness of where enemies are around you, and from just playing mechanically better than your enemy (aka outmaneuvering them, aiming better, and developing a sense for when you can launch missiles that the enemy player will not see).
Essentially, furball gameplay without IRCCM is the peak skill requirement you can have in this game, because you have to do everythign perfectly to not die and get kills at the same time.
On top of all that, BVR gameplay is straight up boring as shit, and also not viable at all in the situations we encounter in game in Air RB, just due to how matches are set up in the first place (which I’m not assuming will change, because a fast-paced TDM style game mode is the whole reason why this game is uniquie compared to simulators like DCS).
That’s not true, every radar that cannot ground map while also scanning (basically anything that isn’t AESA) is at least to some degree affected by multipath interferences. Aim-7M’s seeker improived the filter for ground clutter, which is an entirely different hting to what multipath interference is.
Ground clutter has been a HUGE issue irl to radar guided missiles before monopulse seekers, because a lot of the non-monopulse missiles basically couldn’t properly track at all if there was any kind of ground in the background of the target. Most radar guided missiles in fact vastly overperform at low altitude in game right now, in terms of their seekers, because of the fact that any “CW” guided missile in game doesn’t see any kind of ground clutter at all.
The seeker of Fox 3’s like an Aim-120A is basically nothing different than the SARH seekers we already have on 7M and R27, except the missile also carries its own, on board radar, that can illuminate the target for the seeker, without the need for the launch aircraft to illuminate the target.
In real life you try to maximise the chances of surviving the engagement (for obvious reasons), in the game you try to maximise your amoutn of kills.
Its VASTLY different how you take engagments irl to in a game, even if its a much more “role play” like simulator, like DCS, because if you die in game, you do not die IRL.
IRL you want to launch from as far away as possible to make sure you have enough time to disengage and not get hit, launching from far out means you have to have altitude and speed so your missile can actually reach. In game you want to launch not wiht th ehighest chances for your survival, but wiht the highets chance to actually kill the enemy (to make sure you can win the match with the amount of missiles your plane carries), which even for 100+km range missiles is typically around 15km max against enemies that know what they’re doing.
The whole “but in real life” argument when arguing about actual gameplay of the game is insanely stupid and basically can never be applied whatsoever. By the sheer nature of a game, especially given that you get rewards for both killing and winning, peopel will play vastly different from how a real life engagement goes.
Phoenix is like the one radar guided missiles you actually have to dodge now, even if you’re low, because the warhead is so big that it will kill you even if it multipaths and hits a tree near you.
The best overall way by far to make people stick less to the deck would be just nerfing IR missiles, and making radar guided missiels easier to notch + chaff (even if its unrealistic) so its more important to get launches that people don’t see (like the infamous PL-5B or R-24T from orbit by a J7E or MLD liek 2 years ago, that was really hard to be aware of that it has been launched at you, and you won’t flare a missile you don’t see), whiel keeping multipath. You could then choose between being low to avoid radar missiles, without having to notch and bring chaff, but youd have the drawback of having to be aware that no one orbital stikes you with an IR, but you could also easily nocth+chaff a radar guided missile coming at you whiel youre at altitude, without having to throw away your whole energy and position like you currently have to (like e.g. against an ER you have to hit an almost perfect 90° to chaff it, which basically immediately loses you the enegagement if the enemy player isn’t shit at the game)
im not reading all that but congratulations or my condolences
The Warhead has not changed since launch my guy, and no the missile wont even be in the same postal code as you if you defend at all, warhead size means jack if the missile wont even fuse in the same continent as you.
The fact that people are actually quantifying the 54 as a threat and not a literal flat out downgrade over the AIM-7M currently is just disappointing to me as it shows how few people have used or fought against the missile.
and still non-monopulse seekers/radar performe the same as monopulse seekers/radar in game
54 is not a threat at all, its useless against anyone that does anything, but you do have to dodge the missile if its tracking you, even if youre low, because otherwise the explosion will kill you.
And while the Phoenix is pretty useless, saying it cant get into “the same postal code” as you is just flat out wrong, the missile tracks pretty well, its just fat and not very maneuverable, it tracks just fine.
Proximity fuses wont fuse unless the missile gets within 20m of the target, it will not fuse on the ground or anything that is not an aircraft.
The missile easily looses track of targets below 15k FT ASL unless you hardlock it and use SARH, removing the entire reason to use the missile at that altitude, the AIM-7M will do the same thing but better in every single respect.
The missile does not track well as stated prior, it is comically easy to avoid it’s seeker limits and the seeker itself has abysmal performance. No if you aren’t afk it is literally braindead easy to force the missile to go off to another part of the continent. I’ve literally dodged said missile by turning 30 degrees off axis and watching 6 54s just go dumb.
Everything you have said so far is proof that you have not used or had a 54 fired at you before.
The AIM-54 is nothing less than a joke in game, it shouldn’t be but that is just how it is.
Wait until you realize AMRAAMs IRL are impacted by multipathing until C6/C7.
MICA EM Block 1 is impacted, Block 2 isn’t.
R-77 until M is impacted.
Etc.
Even DCS’s AARHs have multipathing cause they don’t have new enough missiles that lack that flaw.
It’s just a few paragraphs, I’m sure it’s not too bad. I read it in a relatively short amount of time. What’s the point of a discussion if you just refuse to read something?
And yet fox 3’s in DCS are hardly impacted by this issue. Flying close to the deck in DCS just gets you killed.
Aster 30 can hit an anti ship skimming the surface under 5m altitude (navies possessing this missile often do exercices with coyote target drones)
Why am i talking about Aster you may ask ?
because Aster and MICA EM (being tested right now) share a similar seeker (Aster’s seeker is basically an upscaled AD4A found on mica).
all fox 3s being tested are currently more or less from the same era, so there isn’t any reason to believe their seekers wouldn’t be any different.
so basically, multipathing shouldn’t affect the missile if you are not flying lower than 5m, good luck with that :)
There are no blocks for MICA…
only mica and mica ng (which has yet to enter service and which will be upgraded with an AESA seeker).
and you can find that gameplay at basically every BR up to 9.7, nobody is stopping you from playing here instead, if that’s more your style.
That’s your opinion, it isn’t necessarily shared by everyone
There are soooo many ship based SAM out there proving that statement is blatantly false.