The radar lock you should know is exclusively for testing purposes and that wouldn’t occur in a real match. It should be obvious…
So as I said, IR missile locks don’t give warnings as you falsely claim.
1 Like
Firstly, I never stated that IR missile locks give warning. Read more carefully next time.
I will give you point that it can be done but is it really practical in ARB?
You fired on an AI attacker which pretty much flies in straight line but on a target that is maneuvering? Wouldn’t missile run out of energy by the time it gets close?
AIM-9L has a range of over 14km, I forget its exact range but maybe it’s on wikipedia or another site; War Thunder has an equal range to that claim from a previous test.
At 300 meters per second target, the range of a head-on shot is closer to <5km.
1 Like
i mean, why not implement better models then :) i like the tents but i bet you could do much nice things with different base types. maybe even a rehaul of the whole base system.
Yep, the visuals are just “flair”, essentially. Something to look at that “fits the aesthetic” instead of firing ordnance at a glowing UI circle or similar.
Form follows function, not the other way around, something we often see people forgetting in game design discussions.
You are right, i agree with you. But to be fair. These bases are in the game since when? i cant even remember. At least before ground was implemented. So, there was a lot of time :D Details - Models are awesome though - are not the strongsuite of the snail and it would be awesome to see little things that make the picture better.
4x500kg, Su-17 still carries it’s missiles and can fight properly :)
Bombs are like bonus points for it
Or it can be called fraud,
Imagine you invest in a project and the bank says you can earn $100 per day.
After getting enough investors, the bank suddenly said they found it a bug and would reduce the payment to $80, what will happen to this bank?
The bug is that the rocket can get enough damage, but not about earning, this is the other way to reduce the earning, which is not acceptable.
1 Like
Further there is also the F-111A Flight manual, which I think should be fine under the source restrictions
As such details about the AN/AJQ-20 (Bombing-Navigation Computer) can be found; beginning PDF page #95.
and the AN/ASG-23 (Lead Computing Optical Sight System) is described beginning PDF page #134.
1 Like
It’s not fraud.
1 Like
My complaining and other unconstructive meanings.
Oh, so snail nerfed rocket damage to bases, because, it’s “realistic” (not so), and lot of small caliber rockets cannot damage structures (can), and there they want be “historically accurate” (no).
But in the case of realizing/implementation of the real vulnerabilities of base buildings to various types of impact, they decided to forget about “realism” and simply plug the hole with “game conventions”.
As some say - “s**t in one hand and dream in the other”, right?
More constructive part
While they can just leave the thing which work (work good, and ain’t harm anyone).
Or make job properly - just make the bases different - closer ones (frontline FOB/bunkers/big concrete buildings) is reinforced, and need a really punch (bombs/high caliber rockets) to be harmed (like armour value, or something like that).
Napalm, btw can ignore this armor, because it’s liquid (sticky tho), and hot.
When those, which far ones, is unarmoured (tent camps, ammo/fuel silos/stashes, radar stations/SAM emplacements/firebases etc.) and can be destroyed even by small-caliber rockets/gunpods/etc.
(Bombs can too, for sure. Splash go boom.)
And forward airfields can be destroyable (but very durable) too, with alot of stuff to break (like in sim battles, but more… precisely, I guess).
Or even both (close, and far) bases can be same, including all types of targets - light and heavy armoured.
For all type of ordnance been needed to completely wipe out the base, and this would encourage teamplay, giving more players opportunity to have rewards from bombing - not to the fastest ones.
Non-useless bases
(If even forget about make them (bases) useful, and different bases will provide different advantages:
Radar “light up” enemies in fixed zone, and even if future can guide heavy SAM sites;
Ammo/fuel/spare parts stashes will make rearm/refuel/repair on airfield faster;
Artillery/TML emplacements pounding enemy positions (bases too).
Helicopters landing pad/air control tower spawn waves of AI helicopters raids/assault aircrafts.
Etc.)
Looks like ideas for further topic.
Old, but maybe gold idea. Long one, so read it, when finish other.
I had one on .ru, about game-ender in form of AI-heavy bombers (B-52/Tu-95, B-1B/Tu-160, fast enough to have chance, slow enough to be interceptable (many chaff/flares, maybe ECM)), which respawn on high altitude (15+ km) after friendly airfield (from different places - I don’t like vulching), and try reach enemy one, for destroy it.
(Sim battle scheme - 5 parts, to destroy each - 1 bomber must get all his ordnance on it.
In each wave of bombers (every 2-3 minutes, first wave going after 5 minutes from battle starts/all base been wiped) is 5 planes.
To destroy airfield (instawin), 5 bombers must load off at those parts.
Bases - is heavy SAM sites. Forward airfield - is a radar station, covered by light SPAA (Gepard/Enisey).
Each one (base) launch 1 missle, and can shot down 1 bomber (if all launched - only 1 bomber need to be intercepted by players).
So players need to destroy enemy bases, and protecc their ones, to make work with bombers not so complicated.
And this even realistic - player clash is no more reasonless bloodbath - it now a fight for air superiority and SEAD, for bombers can do their work.
Just implement a precise damage model/calculation, to this part of bases (like to vechiles/tanks in columns), to make precision of strike important - no just shooting in one building, and kick HP out of all base, no.
Players need to literally destroy all base structures/stocks/trucks on base, to destroy it all.
And this make balance in weaponry - rockets lighter, faster, and can be launched from distance at low altitudes, but need precision - you must aim vital points to do damage.
While bombs is heavy, but even not the biggest ones enough to be landed near target to destroy it.
There are plenty of videos showing the destruction these rockets cause to buildings in real life, even in current, ongoing conflicts.
Why do you think these rockets exist as real life weapons? To scratch the paint?
2 Likes
Yes, how dare people progress. We must drag everyone down to a painful rate of research.
3 Likes
My honest reaction
Well, due to Hydra/CRV-7 damage in game i really have the feeling, that all users of rockets better to buy licence/copycat S-8.
(Cause Hydras really just scratch the paint to all, what have more than 100mm of homogeneous armor.)
It (S-8) have better filler, penetration and damage.
And ballistics. And quantities (20 per pod).
And looks like Russians try make some kind of APKWS/laser-Zuni by S-5/8/13-korr.
Комплекс авиационного управляемого оружия Угроза (С-5кор, С-8кор, С-13кор) | Ракетная техника
It is a perfectly usable aircraft. Even then, it wasnt supposed to be good at bombing bases. IRL unguided rockets were used on the Swedish interceptors as bomber destroying weapons. You can fly it just like any other plane, and it just so happens to be perfectly fine at 11.3. Even the F-1, which has no CMs at 10.3, is still a GREAT jet imo even in uptiers. If you play your cards right, you should be fine in any jet. I see a huge amount of new players just performing like garbage because they didnt take a moment to learn the game before dropping $70 on a pixel jet. Too bad we cant fix that one.
1 Like
Because consumers aren’t investors, right?
2 Likes
Or makes you wonder why bombs exist, seing those rockets are soooooo powerful.
Silly air forces, using 1500 kg TNT in the form of bombs if 50 kg of TNT in the form or rockets do the same amount of damage.
6 Likes
the players are realy salty about this change and i love it
they realy dont seem to understand why bombs exist in the first place if “apparently” rockets do everything way better
The only place where the complains are valid in my opinion is heli pve
Heli pve in general just suffers, even if the heli grind itself was made way easier its sad for the mode
9 Likes
I noticed that like 90% of the complaints are from people who bought that j35 premium fighter to rocket rush bases.
7 Likes
Exactly, it’s strange they can’t read the words fighter on the tag. They get a full load of rockets, no missiles and are useless to their team because 70% of the time they die by hitting a tree trying to multipath or don’t multipath and die to a radar missile.
1 Like