Without the ability to pre-designate targets for each missile as you would in real life, in War Thunder you can only update the datalink track for the last missile fired. So in that video if I had ‘soft-locked’ another target to ‘update the guidance’ it would just confuse the second/last missile fired to which target it is meant to be tracking.
That has not been my experience, I have been able to independently guide Pheonixes to the intended targets and can verify what they are doing based on their smoke trails. I can make a video to back up my claims if required, but I have obeserved that the missile will stay on its selected target when fired in salvos as long as the target is highlighted “soft-locked” again at some point. I will double check as well to make sure when I return home.
At least in DCS, the VDI on the F-14 shows you which targets have been selected in TWS by having them flash. So whever gaijin decides to rework TWS functionality i hope they add some sort of way to know if that target is selected in TWS and can be fired upon.
You have remember that the Phoenixes can self guide themself with inertial navigation, so as long as the target doesn’t change course too much when it gets within 10-15 miles it will start tracking itself via the onboard radar. If you have video evidence of the contrary I would like to see it.
https://youtu.be/wsSpRzSA4fM?si=JYidMCSoc_NfJJTu this is for refrence. From what ive seen the general functions of the AWG-9 in DCS are pretty accurate.
1 Like
Yeah theres a definite difference between guidance from ING and guidance from actual TWS(the data about the targets spped/location)
I know about their INS and terminal guidance but I thought we were talking about datalink and their mid-flight updates to INS. Specifically I haven’t experienced this problem:
This is what I haven’t experienced issues with, I have been able to use DL on all missiles fired.
I was only able to test against one player target in such short notice, but two missiles fired against the same target, and then reacquiring the soft-lock after the target diverted course caused both missiles to update their datalink tracking. Will try more targets later and report findings also.
Speaking of TWS, anyone know why in WT, a radar in TWS gets velocity information only after a second pass on a target (on a first pass you get a circle, on a second pass you get a circle with the velocity vector)? Is this realistic?
Also, why is it that sometimes looking at a furball some targets will suddenly show up with some while velocity readings? Like, you see it fly at you with a mildly sized vector, then suddenly (for one scan period) the velocity suddenly jumps to like double or triple in value and points in a completely random direction.
Lastly, why does the pipper sometimes jump on a different target than selected? At first, I thought that it might be when you have two targets that are close to each other in distance/velocity/angle, but I noticed it happened in cases where the selected target was flying directly at me with a different target (that the pipper jumps to) at a completely different location.
Speaking of TWS, anyone know why in WT, a radar in TWS gets velocity information only after a second pass on a target (on a first pass you get a circle, on a second pass you get a circle with the velocity vector)? Is this realistic?
This is normal, it needs see the ‘difference’ in two locations to calculate the speed and direction.
Also, why is it that sometimes looking at a furball some targets will suddenly show up with some while velocity readings? Like, you see it fly at you with a mildly sized vector, then suddenly (for one scan period) the velocity suddenly jumps to like double or triple in value and points in a completely random direction.
That may be missiles being fired and caught by the radar.
Is it how it actually gets the velocity information though? I thought it just took some more time on target to process the Doppler return and other stuff. Though maybe it is not enough for the direction.
I think so too, but it does not explain the wildly different vector direction and size (I have seem some quite a bit bigger than a terminal phoenix)
This has been an annoying issue for awhile and it gets increasingly worse if you increase the amount of scan sweeps. I can only assume that the game jumps to a new target if it is found on a different sweep than the one you selected. I can usually reduce the amount of times it does this by using the 4° scan instead of 6°, but the issue still pops up often.
TWS is very buggy, but could be a missile launch, seeing as gaijin for whatever reason decided to allow you to spot atleast the AIM-54 on radar at extreme range (I stg they modelled its RCS to be the size of a plane ffs). Dont think any other missile can be seen on radar, but could be wrong
Thats just an infuriating bug gaijin hasnt fixed.
Problem is, itll jump to targets that ARENT in your radar sweep as well. Its extremely noticeable with TWS on the F-14 because the scam height is very narrow, so any change in scan height will make you immediately lose your target, and ive had TWS make literal 30° jumps in elevation to track entirely different targets, which is horrid.
Honestly, they should make it so that for TWS the radar lock on keybind will first designate a target as a target of interest, and a second click will switch to STT. Maybe add a keybind for dropping the lock so that you can switch between targets that are close to each other.
Another radar thing of note, it is still impossible to change the speed at which you move your radar cursor and change radar elevation. Centering any of those is also not an option for some reason.
Has anyone here played the Pantsir S1? There is a bug - when you lock a target with high angular velocity, like a plane flying perpendicular to you at close range, the lock will stay stationary for a few seconds and then snap onto the target. I think this might be because TWS gets the velocity information only on a second pass, and the tracking radar on the S1 is implemented to have TWS locks as makeshift PESA.
S1 radar is complete autism. If you fly above it, it starts having spasms literally
Its not that simple, because it would need to use completely new smoke types to be accurate as it isn’t as smokeless as AIM-9M, so they’d need to make completely new lines of codes.
1 Like
- Do you even know the actual composition of the 9M’s low smoke propellant vs the 65D’s propellant vs thr 54C’s propellant?
- If you’re gauging this on missile size, then why was it ok for gaijin to give the 65D (300mm diameter) the EXACT same low smoke lines as the 9M(127mm diameter), but NOT the 54C(380mm diameter)?
- Why was it ok for the 65D (which never even had a bug report regarding the reduced smoke motor and I’m not even sure if it ever actually HAD a reduced smoke motor) to retroactively receive the low smoke motor, but NOT the 54C, which had multiple bug reports accepted and passed to devs, and has multiple sources specifically stating it has a low smoke motor?
You’re literally just playing devils advocate, and in a really shitty way to boot.
Heres irl footage of 9M, 65D, and 54C btw, incase you wanted to bring up “but 54C has lots of smoke in test footage!!!” (Its contrails, even low smoke motors create contrails) and the 65D (which need I remind you GOT the low smoke motor the 54C didnt get ingame) actually produces substantial smoke despite relative low alt launches in the footage!
AIM-9M:
AGM-65D:
AIM-54C:
Finally, gameplay-wise, it makes most sense for the 54C to receive the low smoke motor. Its already handycapped into the dirt, with bad TWS/Datalink mechanics, 34% less max G pull than it should have, likely still subpar lofting code, a badly modelled and subpar seeker missing multiple features, and a MASSIVE RCS and absurd levels of contrail, coupled with a long burn time motor, WT spotting mechanics, and a literal RWR warning specifying you are locked, and the overbearing hypercrutch that is gaijins implementation of multipath making you need to be borderline AFK or braindead to actually be threatened by one ingame. Giving it a slight push in a positive (and realitic) direction, by literally just copy pasting 2 lines of code, would really not be some crazy task for the devs.
1 Like
From this video the missile appears very smokey at a relatively low altitude, this seems like an argument the AGM-65D should have its smokeless motor removed (which is entirely reasonable as I dont believe AGM-65s ever changed motors between variants) might be worth reporting.
smokeless motors do produce smoke trails still at altitude but at low altitude they shouldn’t, and that video shows the 65D producing way more smoke than the 65D ingame.
also for seeing the difference between the AIM-9M smoke and AIM-54C smoke its best to find footage of launches at similar altitudes for comparing thats how its determined