Yeah unfortunately I have come across similar issue where some missiles never hit their maximum G load, and that’s not enough for developers even if you demonstrate it. I suppose one of the few ways to get CAMM fixed might be to find the battery time and hope it is less than 65 seconds.
That’s pretty absurd, should be about Mach 1 at 25km rather than Mach 0.3, since missiles just fall out of the air generally below Mach 1 and is unable to hit their targets.
Yes, it is.
And for the same of clarity, target plane did not maneuver at all, it was flying in a straight line, so when the missile is turning, it is even worse.
Im not sure here, but battery time might be corerct here. The thing that is problematic, is that the devs decided it needs to use it whole to get to its max range. So they made it lose the speed astonishingly quickly.
So i went, and decided to check it
0.8s, engine start
So what are you testing?
Not testing anything per se, just showing how terrible at holding speed this missile is.
I understand the frustration but at the same time this is all happing at altitudes way lower then 10km which is the flight altitude of the CAMM-ER. this means at these lower altitudes it has a harder time accelerating and has more friction with the air which all put togther heavilly decrease the range of the missile.
Now I am not saying that the DEVs has modeled this correctly but I feel like the best way to test this is have a target at 10km alt or something along those lines to give it a fair test.
First of all, that is a base CAMM, not CAMM-ER.
Second, where did you get data that 10km is its flight altitude?
Ah my mistake thought you were talking about the ER variant. tho they still should share the same flight altitude.
My source for the flight altitude:
That is most likely not normal, but max flight altitude. Nevertheless i will test it later.
it could be the max flight altitude, however with such classified systems this is the best I could find and knowing the DEVs they probably used that for the range implementation. Good luck with the tests tho
So i did it, 10km alt shot
Start
That is honestly sad to see. Normally I would prefer to believe things are working well but with this I just can’t, the fact it didn’t even make it to 10km is sad and annoying. Thank you for doing these tests tho
im guessing gaijin still hasnt bothered to make any progress if it comes to this thing barely hitting small targets?
fixed that for you
I was in 2 blinkers when you sent that and when i got the gmail notif for this i got happy thinking you fixed the bug. actual scam lmao
Have they voiced about the aim snap to the sky 90° when we launch using optical tracking on TAD modules?
It would seem that once again Gaijin QA team knows better
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QpAAOFq3FhuQ
Clearly the UK Government and BAe Systems are liars and a random russian sorry, I mean Hungarian video game nerd would know more about the capability of a high performance anti-aircraft missile.
Then again, this is the same game that thinks Volna, which was well known for being hot garbage, is so good it’s basically inert.
(Shocker, Gaijin knows nothing about Sky Sabre but continues to pretend otherwise)
Stay impartial Gaijin…
After adding the SV they should be making inprovements to every other system to bring them up to that level.
Flame’s report is still accepted, so fingers crossed that one survives
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/UntlNGV5ZdSU
but sounds like Gaijin pulling the Marketing lie card again
