never mind, im hoping gaijin could give british player a brimstone with IR guidance and same range as mavs thats enough
yeah but British Bias is the worst joke XD
1 Like
Guess what!! We got the most brief introduction of KH38MT!!
Reeeeeally impressive XD
why? beacause it doesnt exist at all
1 Like
That will make things much worse.
it’s impossible for gaijin to model contrast seeker correctly.
Currently they made the track distance of EO weapons elevation angle and weather related to simulate the performance of contrast seeker, and it worked quite balanced
In the game, the lock range of the weapon in is about 50% of the datamine range which means 3km for maverick A,6 for maverick B and 11 for maverick D/G.
Look at FLIR of AA can’t track target at 4km because of a little piece of cloud and performance of laser GBUs, this is gonna be disastrous.
Before you accuse our impolite,you should learn more about what AlvisWisla did.But you don’t care,moreover,you and gaijin are glad to see person like this.When a truth is revealed,the lie must be created buy someone to prevent more people to know,because gaijin isn’t willing to face it.
1 Like
The rules must be followed, no matter what the other person thinks/has previously done. It is well written in the guidelines that you need to respect other members.
In short,gaijin’s rule can endure the lie,but can’t endure the truth.If the rule can’t guard justice,it’s not worth following.I can obey the rule,but one day,gaijin’s prejudice will anger most people.
I really don’t get what you’re trying to say here… To avoid off-topic please just PM me and we can keep the discussion going there.
They already have 80% of what they might need implemented it’s just plugging values into one another until a threshold is met.
And they have already had them implemented in game well enough when they were initially implemented they were not capable of locking onto the ground, which is a Boolean value in each missile’s “.blk” file
In its most abstracted form all they need to do is flip the Boolean, and use a generic range cutoff ( can be based of known specs for the tracking gate of the seeker against a generic target at the optimal aspect angle)as they already do instead of the existing arbitrarily balanced range cutoff , which could be achieved with a some total required change of two lines of code for each missile that was impacted. That’s how few changes are needed.
As seen in the prior post that is exactly the issue, we have data points to the fact that that the AGM-65B should have an approximate range of 3~4.5km, and the -65A half that against “tactical” sized targets (T-62 was used as a stand in for a generic tank type target), which impacts the early systems / airframes (F-4, F-5, A-7, A-10A etc.), and range could be restored by the IIR or CCD Seeker (3x the range of the -65B) variants that most later airframes also have access to.
It won’t be as bad, as any potential shift in overall effectiveness can be accounted for by Shifting either IR SAMs down, or the impacted attackers around in BR depending on where things settle.
The report itself is still undergoing construction, as it’s quite complicated and has soultions with varying levels of abstraction are being proposed alternates if a truly dynamic range (apparent Target size vs tracking gate minimum & aspect ratio) is not feasible, based off said study and statistical analysis so things can be more or less hardcoded to better fit the data if nothing else.
By the way these ranges are for the point track of a moving target so to a point its not so much as a nerf, but a change which again is fairly neutral in impact and effectively eliminates a major source of user error in exchange for some variants losing some range.
There is also proof that some Variants (AGM-65F & -G) had a pilot selectable axis independent correlation seeker mode for attacking specific points of large targets (e.g. Ships & installations). which may solve issues relating to missing targets entirely targeting the centroid of the bonding box instead of the 3d model and so would reliably miss some targets from most angles outside a release from a fairly steep dive.
3 Likes
“The preferred munition against armor was the AGM-65 Maverick missile.The typical attack profile of an aircraft carrying the electro-optical Maverick (AGM-65B) started with a 30-degree dive from an altitude of between from 10,000 and 15,000 feet; the aircraft then fired a single missile at two to three-nautical miles slant range from the target.” --Gulf War
Air Power Survey
I read that testing document before,and i don’t think it reflect the performance of the seeker, we can’t prove that the missile is launched at “max range” or “optimal range”.
From other sources the missile can be fired at 3NM in combat and more in certain condition,like what it does in game.
Man,look at PAVEWAYs, look at stinger,mistral and chaparral.You really think gaijin can fix this?
It’s a different document that literally states the size of the tracking gate for the AGM-65A & -65B so we can work backwards to figure out the ranges, the math’s not that hard and they even provide rules of thumb for the ranges so there isn’t really a need for anything especially complicated, those graphs are just for use as visual aids to help explain the intent of some of the alternate proposals to give Gaijin options.
That data can then be used to calibrate the various other seekers based on the relative performance to known values, it won’t be perfect but it would be far closer than the current implementation.
There are a number of reports that have been accepted, so it’s up to Gaijin at this point.
1 Like
If i can use ccrp to lob a dumb bomb 4-5km and kill an spaa i think a gps bomb will do fine. You obviously have never actually used anything other than mavericks or kh38s to kill an spaa, been hand held a little too long.
1 Like
Way to miss the point entirely. I’m not saying that you can’t get kills with grom. Just like you can get kills with CCRP. Just that they’ll be unreliable and FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from OP compared to the standard of equipment at TOP TIER.
Jeez i just remembered how gayjin tried to explain why mistrals and stingers didnt pull more than 13Gs cuz russian igla couldnt so they couldnt. B R U H
1 Like
I found the source with all of 3 minutes worth of google-fu, and actually looking for patents for the Redeye (FIM-43) it really wasn’t that hard to find because it cited the Redeye patent (the FIM-92 was originally known as the Redeye II), as a direct improvement over to the method it used, which is what is described in the MANPADS article.
It’s a bit annoying that its still hasn’t been actioned by now, though.
1 Like
I’ve actually been thinking about this and im unsure how much of an impact the GBU-39’s will have anymore tbh.
Atm (afaik), the most effective strat for time to ticket effectiveness in sim are napalm bomb runs while retaining a good degree of air to air (so you can protect yourself if intercepted and can help once you’ve dropped bombs).
- The F-15C can carry up to 9 BLU-27B napalm bombs along with 8 AAM’s, enough to kill 4.5 bases and have no impact on its flight performance.
- The F-16C can carry 2-8 BLU-27B with 6-4 AAM’s for a similar effect.
- The Su-27SM can carry 1-8 ZB-500s with 11-4 AAMs (optimal is something like 6x ZB-500 + 8x AAMs for a good mix imo, 4x + 10x gives you the missile count advantage at the cost of 1 base tho which is also very viable imo)
This means all 3 of the planes above can wipe out ~2+ bases per sortie while remaining strong air to air fighters. The F-15E on the other hand has to give up AAM’s for its GBU-39s, and from what I’ve been told, cant carry napalm, which likely makes it inferior in base bombing performance. For the GBU-39’s to make this up, the ticket bleed from battlefield wins would need to be equivalent to at least 6+ bombing bases imo, to account for the opportunity cost of not running an aircraft with superior base striking capabilities along with a better FM, as well as the AAM’s it cant carry while doing so.
As for the Grom-1E’s, they might actually be detrimental to REDFOR teams in sim. Their extreme range and ease of use are likely to lead to bots abusing them excessively, which will fill REDFOR teams with bots, and even if they arent being played by bots, launching from the AF is likely to lead to even more manpower issues for REDFOR, who already suffer from lower player counts at top tier.
If gaijin adds new long range GBAD like the patriot in the trailer eventually though, the Grom-1E’s will suddenly make REDFOR significantly more viable as theyd be the only nation (currently) to have the ability to strike said GBAD systems from beyond their range.
I could be wrong, but werent they modelled as contrast seekers in the past, followed by gaijin absolutely ruining their seekers for “balance” and then pretending they couldnt model them properly at a later date?
I specifically remember testing with friends the launch range of the missiles vs targets on different types of ground, and though it might be a placebo and the seekers “didnt” work as real contrast seekers, they DID seem to work better than they did after they made it possible for them to lock the ground…
They are optimized specifically for taking out static targets, so things like pillboxes, AA / AT emplacements and MG turrets, efficiently in a single pass, much more so than CCIP rockets / bombs, but don’t quite have the stowed kill potential of a gunpod, but are carried in a slightly more efficient form factor vs conventional bombs / 500lb JDAMs since only the AV-8B’s have access to the BRU-70 D-ITER, and the BRU-57 / STAR Rail aren’t a thing or as efficient as the BRU-60 could be.
It’s best not to consider them a direct replacement for anything, but to supplement stowed kills / station efficiency against lightly armored static targets that you might for example find in number at Frontline type objectives, so you don’t have to expend heavier ordnance that is otherwise better suited to being used against armored or mobile targets, especially if fuel tanks are used (even if the CFTs do exist, alternate loadings would help retain BFM performance since they can be dropped).
I get that, my point was more along the lines of the F-15C/F-16C already do a stunning job at ticket victories with napalm, something the F-15E cannot do, so for the GBU-39’s to be worth the sortie, killing a battlefield needs to be worth more than the sum of striking multiple bases in a single sortie, particularly considering the sacrifices in AAM’s that need to be made to carry enough to completely wipe a battlefield in 1 run leading to you being a less effective air to air platform and more easily intercepted.
That being said, there is the argument that someone could do base strikes with F-15C/16C while the F-15E focuses battlefields and convoys, which is fair, seeing as the F-15C/16C are both SO efficient at killing bases that only 1-2 of them are needed per team to wipe all bombing targets per sortie, so the F-15E will allow faster wins through more complete objective gameplay on a team scale.
At the end of the day, objectives in sim remain relatively simplistic, and the efficiency balance in tickets of performing them is very skewed. Killing 3 bases will give you a similar ticket bleed to capturing 1 air point for example, but capturing an air point can take upwards of 10min and require a lot of combat, with no guarantee of completion. They act more as “secondary objectives” when it comes to winning matches imo. Killing air targets is also decent for tickets, but you need to intercept the enemy AI vehicles flying at mach jesus or in erratic patterns, and either use your finite AAM’s to kill them quick, or guns and risk being intercepted/interrupted. Convoys dont tend to be killed often due to their glitchy pathing, strong AA and up until this point, there not being many/any vehicles that could reliably wipe a convoy in a single run. Killing battlefields was also difficult due to the shear number of units, and the fact that winning a battlefield is actively detrimental, as it can push objectives AWAY from your teams airfields and towards theirs.
As such, bombing bases are the most efficient targets and also the ones we have the most details about the impact of on a match, even if anecdotal. If killing a battlefield is the equivalent of only killing 1 base for example, running an F-15E with GBU-39’s would basically be a non-starter, as the opportunity cost to your team would be high.
(That being said, its gonna finally give us a new thing to do sorta, so im definitely still gonna run the F-15E just to strike objectives others dont lol)
You aren’t wrong it’s mentioned in the MiG-27M’s Devblog and it was how they were when originally implemented.
Unlike the seeker of the Maverick missiles, the Kh-29T missile and the KAB-500kr guided bomb are equipped with a TV-correlation seeker, the main feature of which is the difference in the visual image of the captured area and the rest of the background. This means that such seeker will not be able to lock on single ground targets such as a tank, but they will be able to capture any point on the land surface. Thus, the player will be able to strike at the intended locations of the target without visual detection (tanks in the bushes, or at the capture point, covered by an obstacle). However, if the enemy’s tank changes its position, then the drop will be done on an empty spot.)
And in the eventual report on the issue, that the change was a “balancing decision” even though that’s not what the report requested, though was mentioned as an alternate option.
The Brimstone isn’t the first and won’t be the last.
4 Likes