Well, if Gaijin are indeed working on RCS in anticipation of stealth coming, we might see missiles stop targeting each other as the launching aircraft should have a far higher RCS.
Other than that, I agree with you, I doubt they’ll ever fix the 54.
1 Like
I think RCS, as a basic variable, is already implemented in the game. AFAIK, there should be parameters dictating how RCS scales with aspect angle, although fixed for all aircraft. I have not seen anything specifically setting an RCS value for each aircraft, but I think (this is speculation on my part) each aircraft’s RCS depends on its wing span. Maybe that’s why there used to be problems with MiG-23’s disappearing from radar with its wings swept back.
They might be thinking of adding more stuff to better model RCS. One thing is for sure, though, the 117 would be a really good way to test how low RCS impacts gameplay.
6 Likes
Yeah I’m aware, I just meant a more believable version of RCS, as what we have now is a joke past 12.0. For instance, I really shouldn’t automatically switch TWS tracks from a plane to a missile or when trying to get an ACM or HMD lock it shouldn’t lock the missile. I also believe the current RCS model in game is disproportionately affected by the speed of the target, as I never have any problems locking missiles.
1 Like
Someone could pass to me the source that say about burn time of aim54A/C and thrust ?
Can somebody get a primary source that confirms the maximum speed of the AIM-54C?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
1 Like
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
Pls share the issues
1 Like
They dont care brother
yeah, unfortunately they couldn’t care less… and here i am hopeful about it being fixed
3 Likes
Leis wait and see, the surprise shines tomorrow
The NATOPS is a quick search away, although it’s partially redacted. The biggest problem is the drag and guidance, on paper the thrust is accurate.
After years though, I have no real hope of any sort of fix on the Phoenix.
well this was disappointing
You’re in for a long ride, welcome to the club
3 Likes
Yeah, they always do this. “Not a bug hurr durr”
Then why is the missile outright worse? They just refuse to explain themselves, it’s lazy and malicious.
3 Likes
Exscuse me, do anyone know how the following reply can answer all the arguments I made in this report(Community Bug Reporting System) regarding “Incorrect HPRF minimum range for the F-14 radars” and marked the [report] as “not a bug”?
“Bug Reporting Manager #2:
AN/AWG-9 is not an FMCW radar.
AN/AWG-9 uses single antenna to transmit and receive.
FMCW radars use two separate antennas to transmit and receive at the same time.
For AN/APG-63 and N-019/001 radars it is known that target range and speed are estimated in search mode by matching filters where target return appear between speed measuring phase and two ranging phases. Filter band width determines minimal values and resolution for range and speed.”
3 Likes
He told y that, because other radars have that problem, this one also has it and either disregarded the info you posted or just played the “we keep it as is because reasons” card
1 Like
“we dont plan on adding this feature” meaning they dont plan on reverting on how it was before they changed it… Community Bug Reporting System
1 Like
So how come the f14 with the worse missiles sits at 13.0 and the f14 with the actual good missiles sits at 12.7?
Furthermore, why does the phoenix still only have 17g pull compared to its realistic 24g? and why doesnt it at least get 20g like the farkour? is it so that you can sell gaijin coins so people buy the only f14 with good missiles?
6 Likes
pretty much yeah, to sell the f14 iriaf even more and make profits
but one of the answers to why they won’t make the aim54c pull 20g too because it’s not “realistic” as the fakour is based on that AA system’s missiles with the aim54a guidance integrated or something