Technical Discussion: Limitations of War Thunder’s Fixed-Altitude Multipath Model

In War Thunder, low-altitude flight—including terrain masking and sea-skimming—is widely used to evade radar-guided missiles. The June 19, 2024 “Seek & Destroy” update changelog [1] stated that the maximum altitude of the multipath effect for airborne radars and missile radar seekers had been reduced from 100 m to 60 m. The same changelog explained that this effect had originally been introduced for gameplay reasons.

That source alone does not reveal how the magnitude of the effect varies with altitude, whether system-specific coefficients are used, or how the mechanic is implemented in the current build. It does, however, show that the officially described model at that time applied a common “maximum altitude of the multipath effect” to airborne radars and missile radar seekers.

Based on publicly available radar-engineering theory, this post argues that real-world multipath tracking errors depend not only on target height, but also on engagement geometry, surface conditions, waveform and signal processing, and seeker characteristics. A game model based on a common maximum altitude is easy to understand from a gameplay perspective, but it substantially simplifies the underlying physics. The purpose of this post is therefore to provide a basis for discussing possible improvements to the model.


1. Engagement Geometry and Variation in Path-Length Difference

An important quantity when assessing multipath effects is the path-length difference between the direct signal from the target and the signal that reaches the seeker after reflecting from the surface. In a simplified model with a locally flat reflecting surface, the one-way geometric path-length difference (ΔL) can be approximated as follows:

ΔL = √[R² + (H+h)²] − √[R² + (H−h)²]

The variables are defined relative to the same local reflecting plane, rather than to mean sea level:

  • H: seeker height above the local planar reflecting surface
  • h: target height above the same reflecting surface
  • R: horizontal separation between the seeker and the target

When the target height h is sufficiently small relative to the seeker height H and horizontal separation R, a first-order approximation can be written using the reference angle α₀:

ΔL ≈ 2h sin α₀

α₀ = arctan(H/R)

Here, α₀ is a reference angle used for the path-difference approximation. It is not necessarily identical to either the exact grazing angle at the specular reflection point or the seeker’s look-down angle.

For a conventional monostatic radar, the nominal range resolution ΔR can be written in terms of the effective bandwidth B and the speed of light c:

ΔR ≈ c / (2B)

This equation alone, however, is not sufficient to determine whether an actual missile seeker can separate multipath components. In an active radar homing (ARH) system, for example, four round-trip propagation paths may exist [2]:

  • Direct transmit path / direct receive path
  • Direct transmit path / reflected receive path
  • Reflected transmit path / direct receive path
  • Reflected transmit path / reflected receive path

Whether these components can be separated depends on factors including their round-trip path differences, the waveform ambiguity function, matched-filter sidelobes, range-gate design, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the amplitudes and phases of the reflected components, and the seeker’s signal-processing methods.

In a semi-active radar homing (SARH) system, the illuminating radar—typically on the launching aircraft—and the missile seeker are spatially separated, forming a bistatic geometry. Direct and reflected paths may therefore exist on both the illuminator-to-target leg and the target-to-seeker leg. Consequently, conclusions based on the range resolution or path geometry of a monostatic ARH system cannot simply be applied to an SARH missile such as the AIM-7.

2. Surface Conditions and the Rayleigh Roughness Criterion

The electromagnetic roughness of the surface is an important factor in determining whether a strong coherent specular-reflection component is produced. Assuming a Gaussian surface-height distribution, the tangent-plane approximation, a sufficiently large surface radius of curvature, and a gentle root-mean-square (RMS) slope, the Rayleigh roughness parameter R_a and the coherent scattered-intensity attenuation factor A_coh can be expressed as follows [3]:

R_a = (2πσ_h / λ) sin γ

A_coh = exp[−4(R_a)²]

where:

  • γ: the actual grazing angle of the reflected path, measured from the reflecting surface
  • σ_h: the RMS surface height
  • λ: the radar wavelength

For fixed σ_h and λ, geometries in which the seeker is higher than the target and the horizontal separation is comparatively short tend to produce a larger grazing angle γ. This increases R_a and reduces A_coh. A reduction in the coherent specular component does not mean that diffuse scattering, clutter, or localized specular reflections disappear.

Furthermore, A_coh represents only the attenuation of the coherent component caused by surface roughness; it is not the total reflected-signal intensity. The actual reflected intensity also depends on the smooth-surface reflection coefficient, the medium’s dielectric properties, polarization, incidence angle, and other factors.

3. Seeker Types and the Limits of Public Information

David K. Barton’s general theory [4] discusses low-angle and monopulse tracking errors when the direct and reflected components fall within the radar beam. The actual tracking limits of a specific missile, however, also depend on the characteristics of its seeker.

According to a Raytheon “AIM/RIM-7 Sparrow” document included in a U.S. Navy source [5], the AIM/RIM-7M was developed around a digital monopulse seeker. For the AIM-120, a modern ARH missile, a U.S. Air Force fact sheet [6] provides only the general statement that it offers improved capability against low-altitude targets compared with the Sparrow.

That general capability statement is not sufficient to infer the AIM-120’s specific multipath-mitigation methods, bandwidth, minimum tracking altitude, range resolution, or other internal parameters. Research examples using wideband radar and super-resolution processing do exist [2], but they do not demonstrate that the same methods are implemented in any particular operational missile.

4. Proposal for Improving the Game Mechanic

Real-world missile avoidance at low altitude depends on a combination of factors, not multipath alone. These include terrain masking, surface and sea clutter, and the missile’s guidance, control, and kinematic performance.

Doppler notching is another important factor. Here, Doppler notching means maneuvering so that the line-of-sight component of relative velocity—and therefore the corresponding Doppler frequency as observed by the radar or seeker—approaches the clutter-rejection region or another unfavorable region of the velocity-processing gate. In an SARH engagement, the transmitter and receiver are spatially separated, so the exact condition depends on bistatic Doppler geometry.

A model based on a common maximum altitude, as described in the 2024 official changelog, simplifies many of these factors. Rather than removing multipath entirely, I propose moving toward a more continuous model that considers the following:

  1. Independent evaluation of engagement geometry: Evaluate the seeker-to-target look-down angle and the grazing angle at the reflection point separately, using the horizontal separation and the target and seeker heights above the local surface.

  2. Consideration of surface type: Apply roughness-related attenuation according to whether the reflecting surface is open water, flat ground, or another surface type.

  3. Gameplay-level categorization of seeker characteristics: Where public information is available, treat guidance architecture (SARH/ARH), angular-tracking method, and signal-processing generation as separate parameters. Where public information is insufficient, any balancing coefficients should be explicitly presented as gameplay abstractions rather than as a real-world performance ranking.

  4. Combination with Doppler conditions: Evaluate the combined influence of line-of-sight Doppler conditions and multipath instead of treating either factor in isolation.

References

6 Likes

wow

Multipath shouldn’t even be a thing on modern ARHs, period, at least not on the very flat surfaces where it is easy to abuse like the sea in Nuke thunder

Also can we please avoid AI

6 Likes

I haven’t flown at ground level in so long at this point.
Multipath is fine as-is.

2 Likes

there are people that can notch a mica with a few puffs of chaff at altitude but there are also a ton of people who cant. and unless you want a game for tryhards just get good does not work

and its not like multipath has no counter play
not to mention viggen yak141 su27 were notching is a complete gamble due to bad rwr

There’s about 12 entire Brs brackets where you can play without having to worry about notching.

There’s also a lot of people who can’t aim or can’t dogfight (i’m not very good at the latter myself)

I would like for the game to be somewhat immersive and still somewhat realistic, even if not completely. Having my main weaponry be ineffective because of one simple trick which, excuse me to say, does not require a lot of thinking nor input from the person doing it isn’t exactly fun either.

Notching is basically “put missile to 90-110° region => chaff => pull up or down”
Granted maybe more input than your average WT interaction, which isn’t saying much

It has, but it is very much a diceroll and not applicable more often than not

3 Likes

true but top tier air rb is already hard enough has it is

in theory yes.
in practice its alot more than that.
you have notch gates (chaff not working wen you are to fast or micas just not giving a f)
you have the datalink trap
and if everything else fails you have multiple missiles coming for you in particular the start of the game
and sometimes iog can still find you

What it takes to lose- Games way too sweaty to even adjust MP. 32 evades is a fraction of how many I dodged.

Too many missiles not enough CMs to be removing MP- it would kill the game. Hope it never happens

1 Like

At the start of the game you can usually just run them out of energy and take your time.

people dying early are usually the impatient ones, which seems to be a recurring theme in this game, so nothing new here.

Datalink does not prevent a miss if you notch when the missile is close.

1 Like

yea i do that mostly but wen i am back my team has either won or is down to 2-0 people

that would require me to know wen the missile is close(pretty much all my most played planes dont have maw) and the rwr “range” is to inaccurate

I mean you can usually guess this with your radar tbh

RWR should also be improved, that I agree

Still you won’t convince me someone doing no effort and still forcing a dogfight or slinging a fox-3 while i positionned better by going higher is good gameplay

2 Likes

not gonna. going higher has a ton of advantages
but you need skill to actually use that to your advantage.
if we talk about realism staying low is also the common solution wen you are not the numerical and technological top dog

because buildings hills and the curvature of earth still give an advantage even against next gen radars

I agree with the sentiment of the post, but I hate that you used AI. please try to do your own research and present it yourself in the future.

adding more diverse modes and maps (like NE) could easily fix it. larger mountainous areas, or simply making spawns and encounters randomized so you don’t know exactly where the enemy is would allow multipathing to be reduced. The main issue is most maps are simply too flat and overall boring. right now it’s just missile jousting, whoever gets the first successful hit wins just because of how the mode is set up.

UNN_Daedalos
Also can we please avoid AI

Venndigo7192
I agree with the sentiment of the post, but I hate that you used AI. please try to do your own research and present it yourself in the future.

Oh.
Is that just an emotional argument, or is it because it violates the written rules (´・ω・`)?
(This is just a question unrelated to the main topic.)

Just turn back.
You already have the means at your disposal to reliably evade any missile without relying on chaff or MP.
The reason matches are decided the way they are—with everyone engaging in furballs because beam-chaffing and MP allow for unrestricted closing—is simply because players choose to play that way; if you stop relying on MP-based deception, the problem resolves itself.
Alternatively, perhaps you are grinding for the F-16 event; in either case, that does not justify the need for MP.

Most importantly, this game is designed based on reference materials.
Furthermore, that document indicates that modern missiles are no longer vulnerable to MP or chaff.
Therefore, the game should reflect this reality. Just as the 9M and 73 possess IRCCM capabilities, radar-guided missiles should possess ECCM capabilities.

1 Like

Launching missiles and then fly back to airfield to either rearm or leaving the game also does not sound like peak gameplay

Even if it would super charge my kd in particular using f15e/ge or iraf

Also does not work in the f18e given you will be an even better free meal for rafale players

Why are you launching all the missiles in the initial strike?

The 18 has the largest number of ARHMs, and the Rafale’s MICA has lost its range advantage.In my view, you fall behind after MP and Chaff have been weakened, it simply means you’re not skilled enough.
If that still doesn’t resolve the issue, the BR can simply be adjusted. Since the aircraft’s performance remains unchanged, any capability issues can be addressed by tweaking the BR.

this

rafale and mica was never about range if anything range is the only thing holding that thing back

That is exactly what I have been saying all along.
If the current meta—which allows for the unlimited forcing of WVR combat through the use of countermeasures like MP and chaff—is rectified, the Rafale will face a range disadvantage; consequently, it will require a certain degree of ingenuity to secure a victory armed with only eight missiles.
Therefore, it is difficult for the Rafale to achieve “free kills.”