There you go… Keep on going
2 Likes
Yes, but also NEVER adding aim-120 or symilar
true, like french MIRAGE 2000 bus on payloads
When an aircraft is in multi-path or moving in and out of multi-path, the “perceived” target position can jump back and forth. Sometimes when this happens the missile will completely lose track of the target. In the case of missiles like the Sparrow it will often go dead and fly straight into the ground, whereas the 27ER is able to get “later” updates on the position of the target even if lost. It’s a natural consequence of DL. The same thing can occur when you’re trying to track a notching target well above the ground. GJN recently increased the length of time non-DL missiles can “reacquire” a lost target, which should have improved things, but obviously having proper DL is always going to be superior.
As explained multiple times - when people are asking for FM changes that affect RB, I think anyone should be able to comment on it. It’s not a hard concept to grasp, and I know you’re not stupid, so I don’t understand the gatekeeping.
I mean I think you and I are on the same side. What I’m saying though is not about you but the commentary and experiences of overall group users.
When reading comments or talking to people. It’s almost always the same statement. Very few people state that the R-27 is horribly bad, most state that it’s very effective with a few one off bad shots. On the flip side, few people are impressed by the performance of the AIM-7s, but many people express that it has a very bad ratio of performing acceptably, even in combination with better radar sets.
We can reasonably assume that not everyone is an idiot on either side. Even though many people on this forum want to claim their side is the only intelligent nation. From that we can extrapolate there is some level of issue with missiles tracking. It does seem to affect American missiles to a higher degree. The R-27 is either over performant in keeping locks or the the AIM-7 is under performant. We know in real life most all of these missiles did not perform as well as they do in this game.
Which a certain few dinguses say has nothing to do with realism 😂🥲
1 Like
If you’re just going to continue slinging insults instead of addressing arguments… perhaps you should introspect about whether or not what you say is really all that truthful to begin with.
Alvis hit the nail on the head earlier, you can address those comments with substance or you can continue being rude…
…
No, you (they?) both literally attempted to change the English definition of the world realism. There’s nothing of substance to have with people who try to rewrite a language to prove their game is okay.
3 Likes
You resorted to insulting him on multiple occasions and have not provided a counter to their statements. Currently we have your opinion. In testing on my part, the SARH’s are all equally useless regardless of performance disparity. In fact, in the places where they are actually useful the R-27R (not ER) stands apart as slower to accelerate and more maneuverable - more useful in a furball meta.
Your complaints ARE NOT warranted. The insults ARE NOT welcome.
…
It was a generalised thread on the Su27’s performance in simulator battles, it wasn’t specifically about the flight model (to which you contributed nothing), there’s way more pressing issues than the flight model in sim for the su27 which was being disussed, we had to constantly explain to you why these things mattered because you had no idea.
Now of course you can come in there and discuss a flight-model but let’s be honest with ourselves, that’s not what you did. You came in there attacking feet for days IIRC and only after the incident you asked one sortof-productive question about the flight-model. You can call it gatekeeping, I’m just calling it what it is.
Are you knowledgable about the whole multipathing issue? I’m guessing based off the fact you haven’t reported it, it’s not something you’d like to see changed in the game but I’ve seen conflicting sources on what it’s effect should be IRL. IMO It’s ruining BVR combat and pouring fuel on the fire regarding the dominance of dogfighters. Anyone can force a merge with minimal effort.
I was told it is not able to be reported. The devs have set the minimum height for multipathing and all relevant missiles data from which can be reported such as AIM-7F, AIM-54, R-27R have already been reported either internally or publicly by other users. If the devs wish to change the level at which multipathing affects missiles, that would be a step in the right direction in my opinion.
1 Like
Alright. I totally agree, I think a nice “compromise” would be to disable the multi path (or minimise it) for fox 3’s, allowing top tier jets to actually have a BVR aspect to them which is realistic and fun, without wrecking whatever ‘balance’ the devs are concerned about for all other jets below 12.7.
It’s such a shame. I don’t know how to get through to the developers though.
Even cutting the multi path altitude by half would be amazing.
Reduce multipathing for all SARH missiles with inverse monopulse seeker and / or active radar homing would be a good start. The exception can be the AIM-54A which should still have the 1963’ seeker and is not very good… also allows F-14A to remain at current BR.
AIM-7F slingers remain the same, AIM-7M slingers get a big boost and reason to use their ordnance. Super 530D and Skyflash users are relevant again. Tornado receives massive buff.
1 Like
A good start would also be to disable it just for simulator battles, since it should inherently be more realistic. Could be a good testing-ground for the devs without invoking a massive change to the meta in RB.
Definitely agree though. I’m having a blast with BVR battles with friends (custom battles) where we mutually agree to not rely on the ground
Training / BVR for friends can be set so that there is a flight deck limit of 1,000 feet or something.
Weird since I used the definition of realism you provided. Are you accusing your own definition of realism of being wrong?
However, to address the topic, I haven’t had issues with AIM-7s keeping lock. I’ve seen video of before the fixes Gaijin made, and it was pretty bad for those players.
As for real-life: Real-life pilots know when they’re launched on and ALWAYS, 100% of the time, start defeating the missile.
There is no ignoring launch warnings like players do in War Thunder.
There’s no muting RWR for “peace and quiet”.
The reason why missiles fail IRL is because pilots defeat them, and are far more skilled than the average WT player.
2 Likes
All I can say is that you mustn’t have scrolled back far enough to have seen the entire conversation in there over the last few weeks/months. That’s the only way you could have come to that conclusion. I browse the forums by all topics, sorted by newest. Whilst “discussing” things in a Gripen thread, I also I saw that su27 thread, and he was suggesting drag reductions - something which affects the flight model in RB - and all I did was ask for a source, and they went off on a tirade about how I was hunting him through the forums, and had no right to speak in the SB section regardless of the topic. This continued for a while. They also obsessively accused me of making alts to gang up on them, which evidently turns out to be projection. Eventually they resorted to whatever it is you want to call that. Disappointed by how easily you seem to have been conned - I think the result is pretty telling.
Gunjob/other British players have shown documents that state the Skyflash should be capable of reliably hitting targets at a much lower height than it currently can. The 7M with the inverse monopulse seeker head would probably have similar performance. So in theory there is at least a basis for improvement. I think the issue is that the 27ER becomes too oppressive as a result.
Have a feeling this missile would be less of a problem if every plane had 100s of chaff. I’ve been having a blast playing the f14b, mostly schizo flaring/chaffing missiles. I hope the 14D comes soon
But it’s not the amount of chaff that dictates the R27ERs success.
It’s the massive no escape zone it has that GJ has implemented without merit.
The R27ER maintains an insane amount of energy and maneuverability throughout its entire flight envelope. The second it comes off the rail it’s insanely deadly all the way up to 8km.
This should not be the case at least at close range over the smaller, lighter and overall less mass with the same control surfaces of the R27R.
This is the same modeling philosophy that went into the R24R and T that widely contributed to its ridiculous success.
As a Soviet main and fanboy. Instead of reducing the performance, they can unlock the long overdue performance of the aim7, aim54 and Awg9. Hell, if they really feel like such an imbalance would take place.
Give us the R27EA
2 Likes
I’ve been dealing with this missile within 5km today, it’s way more dangerous compared to sparrows. A mix of maneuvers and chaff spam can work. Granted this is no easy task for inexperienced players. Had around ~5 planes spamming ERs and sparrows at me, somehow managed to chaff all except 1 ER, which I kinematically dodged, well I had too much fuel and I ended up dying to an r60 later. If you got a good FM and a lot of CM climbing instead of tree hugging isn’t that bad, but you also need to have BVR ordinance to make it worth while. Personally, I think people started to stop climbing officially since the f14a got added, (for me it was by playing the f4j).
It’s a rather annoying missile to face regardless, but at this point it’s the only advantage soviet planes have
2 Likes