The problem with LMUR is trajectory, i.e. control, not seeking, probably also apply to other AGMs. It never dropped before the target, but fly over. Especially when:
the map is with tree and rocks.
significant height difference exist.
the target moved towardly.
When there’s a mountain between the heli and target (a base), the missile still attempts to implement ‘cruise’ stage, which eventually lead to a crash into the mountain.
It seems that the missile failed to correct in its terminal stage. The cruise stage worked properly, yes, but the missile always try to reach the cruise stage, even it’s really short.
The ballistic algorithm must consider a possible hit zone, and the target should be always included into it, thus, keep the target in the engagement zone, which it failed. The zone should be determined like, if the terminal maneuver started, the nearest boundary it could reach. The ‘cruise’ trajectory also lead to problem with anti-aircraft hit.
IDK, but if the dev is using 4th bezier curve or something, try dividing it. It’s a missile, and should be with some correction real-time-ly. If the problem can’t be figured out, I strongly recommend you to give up the cruise stage idea, which is quite reasonable IRL.
Continue the topic about LMUR trajectory problems. IRL, therere indeed some reasons for a missile to perform maneuvers. Take these examples:
Fly-over needed for SAR. e.g. P-750 or P-1000. This requires a side SAR radar.
Cruise and fly-over needed for tercon, to correct its lane. e.g. Ukrainian ‘Hornet’ UAV. This require a relatively high FOV. (LMUR doesn’t have it)
Usual cruise missile. They has a radio altimeter. (LMUR doesn’t have it)
What LMUR have is merely a TV imager, probable some inert stuff. It probably dosen’t even have the meaning to know its height, how could you think it will cruise with it?
With a imager, what you can know is the target angle, which allows you to do some high-rise trajec or something:
Terminal stage could be with pro-nav or something like that. I mean just feasible, not realistic.
I was wondering the same thing, till i saw a video from Business Insider about the M1296, saying, and showing, the vehicle only has the driver and the commander, who’s also the gunner.
Genuinely, stop adding to top tier, add vehicles to where the game is fun, no one plays naval, helicopters are hardly used, infantry is a waste of money, and not everyone has top tier nonetheless like playing it. We need cooler events with vehicles we have never seen and less often. If you are going to keep adding premiums you need a way to get golden eagles without spending real life money or just remove premium vehicles, Gaijin has made enough money.
They’re running out of things to add, that’s why they’re adding infantry, for them to add another tech tree and keep the grind going lol
But yeah i agree, they really should look and repair the core aspect of the game first, before even adding any new (modern or old) vehicles in game. Quality of life is definitely needed.
This is the dumbest shit I have read in a while. Sure they could and possibly should tone down a little with the amount of premiums, but not what you said. Gaijin is still a business and stuff like servers are not a one time payment (although sometimes it seems that way with the server quality).
The M1A2 Trophy is by far the best Abrams in game currently. I’m actually very impressed and happy to see the tank finally has survivability against missiles spammers from helicopters and CAS. It has made top tier a lot more bearable along with being able to now survive more from the BMPT. If it were up to me, every nation in top tier at their highest BR should have a trophy system to prevent the CAS and helicopter mains from changing the entire course of the game with skill-less spamming.
From a CAS perspective seeing every nation or most nations get a radar missiles has made it easier for me to clear SPAA as well as clear out CAS. (I run fighters since SPAA for some countries are not good at handling overpowering CAS)
@Stona_WT Please, will the Abrams 9mm fuel bulkheads ever be fixed…, its been 3 years since the accepted report and so many other reports about it have been made but they have been marked duplicate with no explanation, implying it is a known issue but rather than fixing it its been made weaker… just why…
This update is very unstable, massive framedrops from 144 to 110 average. Same settings as before update. Also the microstutters are back. To be honest i find the new Ambient Occlusion map to blant and lacking depth in deeper areas. Especially the Ra’am Sagol is looking very pale and blant under the turret. And the additional features and details it has won’t pop that much.
It would be nice to have manual control of the Ambient occlusion setting.
to be fair i’m ok with it, some low tier changes were good, but i wish there was something better added to the british tree than just an Abrams… i’m not playing britain for an Abrams. i wish they did more needed additions instead of whatever they did.
and they fixed more meaningful issue reports, instead of “reverse speed 5kph to 5.8kph”
I wish they were transparent with us, sometimes they just be nerfing random things, contradicting things and then when u inquire or make a bug report its either completely ignored, marked duplicate with no explanation or tagged not enough info
