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.
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
These are AIM-9M, mis-stated as AIM-9X. They are no more / less smoky than those other missiles you’ve shown video of. Depends on atmospheric conditions and altitude, etc.
Would depend on if it had aluminum or not. Only way to be able to tell if it should or shouldn’t have a smoky trail in standard conditions. No aluminum = no trail at low alts unless specific circumstances warranted it.
Sure, I’ll get right on that, seeing as theres such a huge amount of test footage of AIM-9M and AIM-54C test firing that specify exact altitudes for us to compare the 2 🙄
Surely you have evidence to back your claim they have the same amount of smoke then?
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA360012.pdf
As you can see the AIM-9M is stated here (has to be, since Mk36 MOD 11 is one of the reduced smoke models). In the same report…
Baseline ISP of a smokeless motor is 233s, for reduced smoke it is 239s, and for smoky exhaust it is 247. At this point in time, these would have been some of the highest average specific impulse of these types of motors.
We can actually presume that since the AGM-65D and AIM-9M motors were produced around the same time they’d have similar performance and aluminum content (as “reduced smoke” motors in the US almost always means zero aluminum). These use HTPB binders generally.
TL;DR
The AGM-65D and AIM-9M probably have similar content of aluminum and similar amount of smoke when launched in the same conditions.
I think AIM-9M has too little smoke currently in-game regardless.
Just as much evidence as gaijin and you have that the 65D has the same amount of smoke as the 9M
The 54C is confirmed to have a reduced smoke motor regardless, so the fact it produces as much smoke (if not more) than all the other non-low smoke motor missiles in WT means its wrong.
AIM-54C comes from before the improved performance low smoke motor initiatives linked above so it likely DID have more smoke than an AIM-9M / AGM-65D.
I think its more to do with the fact gaijan doesnt model the differences of smoke/contrails these motors produce at various different altitudes. The current ammount of smoke the 9M produces at sea level appears in line with the AH-1Z video but the problem is at higher altitudes it produces just as little smoke. Honestly might be worth putting in a suggestion for some variation in smoke at various altitudes especially since future BVRAAMs will have motors of similar tech.
At certain altitudes they should just have contrails, would solve the issue.
I’m pretty sure the smoke effect is literally a .png at the moment. Considering how they handle contrails for aircraft, I think yet another rework is in order.
2 Likes
Just completed some more tests with players and yes I think you may actually be correct. Soft-locking targets in TWS appears to update the datalink guidance during midcourse. I have a video that is currently uploading, will post when it is done.
Glad I brought this up then, good findings.