Yes, but your organisation has made the claim prior that it is represented in the short term in the MAWS functionality found on Rafale and Typhoon, lacking a more in depth way to represent it at current. Which should have been the action taken to represent it in the short term with Gripen E as well. It would have remained true to the standard your organisation claimed in response to complaints about the lack of sensor fusion representation. The primary frustration is in the lack of consistency and the efficacy in which your staff strike dubious reports but will not flag correct reports for action.
Perhaps this is on account of the triage system your organisation has selected, if so, you may want to look into a better system. They exist, and whilst they are a touch more expensive to license, they are significantly less painful to sort through in bulk.
Im talking about the response on the report you linked. Which was reporting sensor fusion as a whole. Hence the answer that was provided.
Regardless, please move the discussion to a more relevant topic. Your report has been forwarded now. This is a feedback topic for the next major update being tested on the dev server currently.
If you have issues with the bug report site or a report, they can be raised via PM with any Technical Moderator, Senior Technical Moderator and if still not resolved, finally escalated to myself. Otherwise, this has been resolved here.
I mean if you want to be pedantic it didn’t really carry any live weaponry at all and the aircraft we have in game is a purely “what if” so…
also:
Spoiler
R-73s would also be more historically correct for it anyways, and i don’t even think there are any pictures of it carrying R-60s at all. (though i guess in fairness it does show up in an armament table but whatever)
Also, as a side note that is a bit of a tangent to the last of the reported issues, the loadout icons on the IL-2 M-82 for both the ROFS-132 and the ROS-132 are different than the IL-2s mentioned in that last report. Is that something that also needs another report?
And probably R-77 shove 21Bison straight up to 13.0BR, it will kill her because she needs to fight against Su-30s in 13.3BR ‘every match’, after that change.
While 21Bison currently faces them in full uptier [12.3-13.3] only.
hello, I came upon this bugreport that was locked regarding 120D’s HOBS capability (Community Bug Reporting System). I’ve found multiple government acquisition material that mentions the High off bore target capabilities of the missile.
https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Davis_04-08-14.pdf Page 16: AIM-120D AMRAAM
The AIM-120 AMRAAM is the Department of Defense’s premier beyond-visual-range missile
to counter existing and emerging air vehicle threats, operating at high or low altitude with
electronic attack capabilities. AMRAAM is a key enabler for gaining air superiority and air
dominance providing F-22, F-16, F-15, F/A-18, and eventually F-35 aircraft the ability to
achieve multiple kills per engagement. The latest evolution of AMRAAM is the AIM-120D,
which brings increased range and kinematics, improved high off-boresight targeting, and an
enhanced two-way data link for improved accuracy and lethality at range. AIM-120D is an
ACAT 1C joint program, with the Air Force as lead service in partnership with the Navy. The
AIM-120D Operational Test Readiness Review was successfully completed in May 2012 and the
program is currently in dedicated operational testing.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-07-31/pdf/2018-16310.pdf page 36899 top right section: 2. The AIM–120D AMRAAM
hardware, including the missile
guidance section, is classified
CONFIDENTIAL. State-of-the-art
technology is used in the missile to
provide it with unique beyond-visualrange capability. The increase in
capability from the AIM–120C–7 to
AIM–120D consists of a two-way data
link, a more accurate navigation unit,
improved High-Angle Off-Boresight
(HOBS) capability, and enhanced
aircraft-to-missile position handoff.
I really hope they can do something with this. We will never get actual data of what they mean by increased HOBS capability being a current in-service missile so for the being a game and already not realistic for balance I hope they slightly buff some of the performance because they clearly state a performance increase asking for numbers is ridiculous when talking about current day weapons.
@Smin1080p_WT
Could these be looked into? These reports are rather significant for the Germany prop tier line and one of them have been reported over and over for 3 years.
Its good to see that the air spawn speed are being reduced across the board and planes with crazy high spawn speeds are being brough back in line like the Su30sm2, surprised its not in the change log since its prob the biggest meta shakeup this update
what they can do well is ctrl c ctrl v never mind they give you a test server where you don’t have to waste time unlocking tanks that will be broken because you can’t test them if you don’t unlock everything by playing as always they don’t respond
Apologies but that just reads as bias does it not?
“Here’s a new SPAA system implemented in within the last few years with brand new modern missiles but we cannot add the AGM-88 (1979), AGM-84E (1991), or the SCALP (1994/2003) because they’re too advance.” By the time they’re added, they won’t be relevant or useful.
Thats either an admission of bias (on behalf of Gaijin, not you specifically) or a community manager admitting a sort of “Look, Russian tech isnt as good as US/Western tech so we have to pull more modern vehicles to ensure balance in our game”. Its one of those two.
Between the BMPT curbstomping since implementation, KH-38 having no equal, and now a second top tier SPAA (glossing over the very real fact that the last time a Pantsir was added, it dominated the SPAA game for like two years), there’s very little room to interpret a better, more modern Pantsir beyond just pure bias without Gaijin showing the data that the BUK is under performing. What is available to us as players shows its doing fine.
I want to say someone on Gaijin’s behalf has mention that balancing doesn’t just look at the vehicle in and of itself/in a vacuum but also how it fits into a line-up but that could just be wishful thinking. The fact is that Russia players will have two very powerful SPAA options as free vehicles, coupled with the best performing A2G missile while being protected by nearly invincible BMPTs, how else should players interpret that?
You guys are going to add it regardless so feedback-wise, I guess don’t? Or give us HARMs.
