Revealing look into the mind of Russian CAS users. What is CCRP? What are GPS guided munitions?
NATO CAS users have to get used to using CCRP against SAMs they can’t otherwise defeat as low as the F-4E. I’m not remotely worried about a Type 81, unless it spawns while I’m in the middle of a CAS run. If there’s one up when I’m starting, it’s not a big problem. Gotta attack in a smart way, is all.
I already stated the condition.
FnF missiles with such track range should be deleted immediately for the health of ground players. Either that or give us TO mode to play in peace.
so this is suddenly an issue when its looking like the KH-38MT isnt real? I also dunno if im just lucky or not but ive seen like next to no CAS at top tier besides the KH-38MT
Do I at all need to point out that Western IR MANPADs, are (still) not modeled properly even though Multiple Primary documents were presented that would otherwise be sufficient, in fact their original implementation was closer than how it remains to this day.
Aircraft and helicopter model, damage model, characteristic and weaponry changes
- “Igla”, “Stinger” and “Mistral” missiles - corrected flight performance and seeker parameters: engine thrust has been increased, lateral acceleration has been decreased.
“Will be fixed in 2.31.1.63+
Max overload will be 13 G.”
Here is an 8 month old (since it was accepted) report providing fairly exacting detail as to where they went wrong in their assumptions. And yet they remain having done nothing outwards.
At least with the fact that new SAMs are headlining the next update there is a slight chance that it gets implemented, among various other reports to overhaul the FIM-92’s performance.
How do you “square the circle” and claim that this was not intended, and as such find it not to be artificial.
Western manpads perform better than Soviet manpads, so it doesn’t prove anything. [In-game obviously.]
Soviet manpads also don’t over-perform.
For there to be nation bias, a tech tree has to be given something that no other tech tree has of equal or greater capability, especially if inaccurate.
And Kh-38MT’s seeker according to brochures is equally over-performing as Hammer’s IR seeker.
Before Hammer? Maybe, but we had no evidence it was over-performing prior to Hammer’s addition cause this is the first topic that found how Kh-38MT’s seeker is supposed to allegedly function.
We cannot apply newly discovered knowledge in blaming past decisions as that would be bad-faith.
I always had the issue with CAS and not just at top tier. My efforts to get TO mode are years old.
You don’t want them to be modelled in that way, trust me.
but its not ingame
irl it is but ingame its not implemented why?
dont you tell me they gonna implemented it ingame “soon”
Not as they have been implemented in game.
Nowhere in the MANPDS article does it actually establish similar functionality between the two and as such why the lower limit should also apply to said designs.
Of course outside the fact that they look similar.
Do I have to point out that this was about artificial Nerfs. And that the Strela-10M2 also existed at similar Battle Ratings, unlike the Tan-SAM (at the time), and so unless deliberately dragged up by a lineup would be unlikely to match together.
So is every non-CCD, imaging seeker AGM-65 has access to, I’m working on a report but it’s slow going with motivation being fairly fleeting, when other avenues to address the issue take as long as they have.
This has effectively previously been settled, all Contrast and Correlation type seekers and their differences are being ignored for gaming convention and balance, and have been for a while now
We absolutely can when they ignore presented sources and have to fabricate reasons why they are doing what they are doing. Don’t forget that the Original Nerf in 1.97 is completely unsourced, we don’t even know why it was changed in the first place or what it was based off.
And its not the only one, look at the aluminium back plate they invented out of thin air for the CR2 in the CR2 Devblog. Sources disproving that were submitted before those changes went live and 18 months later, still hasnt been fixed
Strela’s currently BR’d among superior SPAA.
My post explicitly states in-game, your previous post also says Stingers perform better than Iglas:
Even if gaijin actually implements proper rolling airframe missile flight mechanics, it would still be a buff for Mistral, Stinger and Type 91. Especially considering these NATO missiles have proper PID control systems and closed loop control feedback loops, so the big post they claimed proved all rolling airframe missiles cannot make use of their full potential G load doesn’t apply to missiles that are not SA-14.
With proper rolling airframe missile flight mechanics, Mistral, Stinger and Type 91 would be very solid kinematically. Easily capable of intercepting and hitting targets flying at speed and in high G turns.
but ingame Iglas has been artificially buff to 20G while stinger remain 13G
in real life iglas only has 10-13G manuverability while stinger have up to 20-22G
I wasn’t talking about that.
Igla is 10G not 20.
its 20G in war thunder
20G ingame
which mean artificially buffed
What?
Why?
20~22G overload, 6.5Km lock-on and Optical contrast mechanics would make for a pretty consistent threat, though the limited size of the missile means performance won’t quite be to Strela levels, it should nicely cover the ranges between that of massed HE-VT and proper Tactical level SAMs in a layered defense.
If this is a thing about the BR going up due to improved efficiency, there’s practically no end to options to mount them on and thus fine tune their selection of ammo and go that way.
To some degree Model changes are slightly different to changing some numbers in a config file & C&P 'ing lines from others to enable functionality.
As they probably don’t have much of an internal modeling team anymore so need to slot work-task to correct the model into their pipeline (which is probably on a fairly long lead time so they don’t need to pay extra for a quick turn around), even if they would be fairly minor changes.
Ok? That doesn’t somehow change the fact that Western MANPADS are erroneously impacted by mechanics that they shouldn’t be due to an incorrect arbitrary decision, simply because 5 minutes weren’t spared to even try to google patents.
It was literally the third result in my search that found the POST seeker’s Patent, which directly listed those for the FIM-43’s guidance mechanism (which is functionally the same as the Igla, though using a Redeye as a baseline argument in the article would have tipped more people off as to what was happening), which then was referenced by the improved Stinger set. it took me all of 5 minutes to actually find.
You can’t just delete vehicles that already use Stingers. Making this buff go through would put many of those at BRs where they get outranged probably even more than at the moment.
Why delete them?
If it was needed, all that would be need would be to simply limit their ammo to to the FIM-92A, and go from there returning various variants until balance was achieved. As it would not benefit from the Lock-on range extension, Optical-Contrast mechanic and lose the FoV reduction IRCCM.
Further IR SAMs should use a SAM-bush tactics and are obviously a shorter ranged option to prevent pop up attacks and where they are most effective.
Alternately they could just drop the BR of proper SAMs to encourage Layered Defenses to actualy pose a threat to various levels of Guided CAS.
They could do many things but they won’t.
Realistically FIM-92K with those buffs couldn’t exist below 10.7 at the very least, even on gun-less platforms like Ozelot.
