I would rather they focus on making helicopters not have magical bubble force fields around them first.
4 Likes
According to your proposal, aircraft have exactly 2 means of avoiding missiles: Multipathing and Notching. You want to outright remove one of those methods for the sake of getting more kills, disregarding the fact that the missile seekers, as you mentioned, could be reworked to resist multipathing rather than getting rid of it entirely.
i dont think a 5 meter multipath height will make any difference to a 0m multipath height
Interestingly, the new Pantsir gets a new mechanism added without any necessary bug reports. But if other countries’ want this same mechanism, it must have a bug report submitted.
15 Likes
MP in both an air setting and a ground setting needs an overhaul. Its time to get rid of the generallised 60m height that is totally ahistorical and set to best available sources for each missile. Minimum engagement altitude if specific MP height is unknown. Its dumb mechanic no matter what context.
But yeah, in a SAM context, where it is impossible to mitigate it by firing top-down, it should never have been a thing.
Perticularly ontop of the fact that Helis are so hard to engage with Radar based weapon as it is
8 Likes
Which within the context of ARH SAMs, is 50% due to MP.
Having a missile launched from a stationary platform from a specific area of the map being just as prone to multipath as a missile launched from an f15e going mach 2 at 10km altitude from anywhere on the map is just dumb
Also I love how people scream about how OP cas is yet when they are presented with an opportunity to nerf it, they go against it
Yeah it is, especially when most SAMs iirc, are less affected by MP than air launched missiles. I think CAMM was test fired at a naval target or something
1 Like
I’d say yes but I will stay on a “maybe” until we see the effects of such a major change on gameplay. Overall though I would say that sth like this is needed for future balancing in regards to more advanced weapons, gen 5 aviation, ARM missiles and ECM.
In the more recent patches we have already seen an increased emphasis being placed upon intercepting enemy A-G munitions while destroying the enemy aircraft itself has become somewhat of a secondary objective. SAMs which perform well in this regard need to have a lot of interceptors and maybe even a pair of guns like we have seen on the “old” Pantsir S1 and the soon to be Pantsir SM SV. Sadly though many nations simply do not have the luxury of these types of system. Aside from the IRIS-T and maybe the SAMP/T most simply can not effectively kill enemy aircaft and need to - as said before - make shooting down munitions their primary objective and on a 1:1 basis this will quickly expend all their available ammo.
New systems like the S400 and Patriot PAC-3 are not wonder weapons and won’t suddenly fix this situation. In order to bring these systems up to standard their lethality has to be increased. And probably the easiest way is to improve their resistance to multipathing on a case to case basis.
2 Likes
In 3rd person, a higher multipath height is required due to perspective shifting making 60 meters more dangerous than first person 40 meters.
A multipathing jet is also one not currently engaging your team, and stalling CAS operations seems to be how things are shifting.
Oh please tell someone in telecommunication industry, i think this work is worth a nobel prize lmao
And i’ve been sent this report time and time again, of at best tertiary source which you can see is more of an encyclopedia and even directly says RIM-7M is based on AIM-7E (contrary tto the report)
And then if you look at the source? JANES!
- Richardson, D., NAval Armament, Jane’s, New York, 1982.-
And yes you can probably do 5m in calm sea with radar at 0m looking up with the missile using proximity fuse to work. Not in like any situation in warthunder.
Tho i do wish look up from 0 ->50m would work better
1 Like
Reduce Mpath altitude significantly. 60m is absurdly forgiving
9 Likes
Its not because trees in this game a 100m tall but you dont care about that do you?
ok and? the whole point of multipath being decreased is that it would be unusable
It’s air defense for anti-strafing
dont fly over trees then.
2 Likes
multipath doesnt need to be decreased, it needs its mechanics implemented (look up at low alt)
and first fix trees
how exactly is a ARH SAM supposed to look up at an aircraft at low altitude exactly
It’s not forgiving in the 3rd person perspective, especially with the average tree height being the upper end of tree heights rather than the real-life average.
In 1st person, simulator, I can see advocating for real multipath heights, because cruising 30 meters above in sim is easier than in 3rd person.