I took it from the wt assistant app
2 Likes
Ah that explains it, I didn’t know of any apps that displayed playercards…
1 Like
I know, just with how buggy the servers are it can be annoying to try deal with helis and your missile just phases through
If you knew that your description was wrong, why would you use it? You’re deliberately spreading misinformation and distorting the facts of the case; even after being called out, you refuse to change your wording. 179 and PARS flight profiles are nowhere close to “direct”, and there is no such problem here. Such wording isn’t “simplification”, it’s completely divorced from reality; not only is this ineffective at simplifying your post, it actively directs attention away from the actual issue.
When you make an argument for something, it should be both valid and sound, and withstand criticism. You could have wrote the actual problem: the low loft angle, target angle, and vertical angular change rate. But by making up a different, massively exaggerated argument, you only achieve a weaker impact.
Everyone with 2 functioning brain cells got what he meant and didnt get misinformed. Plenty of people on this forum dont have english as their first language, its really not that deep.
11 Likes
Clearly only the soviets figured out how to create a top attack missiles and any sources claiming that a western missile can do the same is a marketing lie
8 Likes
You being misinformed doesnt mean im the one spreading misinformation, everyone in this thread understood what I have implied, and have replied with their own opinions, you seem to be the only so bothered about it, if it bothers you this much, just ignore the thread maybe? there is no misinformation being spread from my side and my thread will not be edited/changed.
3 Likes
of course, only the soviets were that genius.
I do not understand why you insist on being wrong. Your topic post is obviously poorly written, even if we ignore the poor grammar or oversimplification. I would ignore this if you put any effort at all into writing it, or clarifying what you meant, but that is not the case here. Even worse is the moaning about “Russian bias”, which is an unproven conspiracy theory laughed at by objective analysis.
By every definition of the word, you are spreading misinformation. “Implying” meaning only works if it is clear what is being implied, which in this case, is not true. What you are saying is both plainly wrong and indefensible; doubling down on your work only makes you and your argument look silly. There can only be one thread on a particular topic, all other threads are removed by moderators! Not only is your post incoherently brash, but it also shuts down any legitimate attempt at discussion. I play helicopters with PARS 3/TRIGAT LR, and detest LMURs as overpowered, so I am 100% in support of buffs or fixes to the latter. It’s not like a forum thread on its own leads to actual changes in-game, but you’re making the argument sound so illogical, that I suspect you are actually maliciously trying to prevent such fixes. So if you are speaking in good faith/in support of your argument, edit your topic post to include the bare minimum of information, and remove all oversimplified/unevidenced statements.
@H_ngma Language barrier isn’t a valid excuse, since AI translation is effective for correct/improved grammar and preservation of original meaning. I myself have both English and another language as native language, and my writing is understandable at the very least.
Not that deep, and once again, if you don’t like it, don’t engage.
It’s a post to spread awareness, a little rant is seen in every posts.
English is not my first language, I write everything in simple terms because I don’t want to complicate it for anyone, there are players who don’t understand the complex terminology used by everyone else.
Once again, you seem to be the ONLY person who finds this misinformative, very ironic.
Where exactly am I wrong?
I have not shut anyone from discussion about it, as there is no one that is against my view, there is bias a little bias here.
Great, you agree with my post, should’ve been the end of it.
Believe me when I say this, the more people that are aware, the more chance of changes.
Like i’ve said before, I made it as simple as it can be so anyone can understand, therefore I will not be changing anything.
Not to be that guy, AI translations are still inaccurate, especially for Chinese, I think you should know that by now if you’ve ever used one.
1 Like
Russian Bias as usual
1 Like
for the billionth time lol
2 Likes
So you yourself acknowledge this post isn’t for real change, or CBR issues organizing, just pointless ranting. You made a new topic specifically to rant, as if that is so deserving of attention, ignoring the relevant threads that already exist; your feelings and opinion mattering more than actual bug fixing or factual explanation.
Although you maintain the opinion that you are perfectly correct, I don’t need dispute that to explain why your post is bad.
also I dunno what this other guy is yapping about but English is my native language and I was able to fully understand your forum post completely.
3 Likes
Oh yeah, nice one, you totally ignored the part where I asked you about the error in my post. And you get that rant posts can be factual, right? They’re not all just “ughgjg I hate this, delete that, fix the game!?!?” Some of them actually have good points about what needs changing, and everyone else in this thread got what I was saying. The guy above this is one of the few who did, it’s just you who seems to be out of the loop. If you really want, you can start a new thread or jump into a different one, but seriously, it’s not that big of a deal.
Well, Hellfires do have a Direct (-DIR) mode that significantly limits their climb, in order to reduce time to target at the expense of range and avoid clouds as they would Break LOS to the target and so interrupt guidance.
And Gaijin’s modeling of the Hellfire loft was an attempt to find a “dynamic” middle-ground between the two / three Trajectory Shaping options. and as such has failed to achieve any of the actual advantages provided by them while somehow managing to implemental all of the negatives.
10 Likes
Well, guess I wasn’t wrong afterall.
9 Likes
Can you provide a source for the JAGM having proxy fuse? If you could give a source I would create a bug report, as far as I am aware there currently isn’t one open. The proxy would be very useful in Helicopter PvE.
There is no point unless you can find more. and do it more concisely than I have, which has been constrained because there is a character limit which made it difficult to both make the case and properly attribute sources since it’s a silent cutoff and I lost about 40% of what I had for the second report
It entirely got thrown out, and then further evidence that it actually does have a VT fuse not just an airburst fuse got “Not enough info” because moderators cant read, nor will accept circumstantial proof to prove a capability is possible. And effectively jumped on the report in 5 minutes while it was still being refined, and closed it. and have yet to actually reopen it so I can fix attribution for some sources and assorted other issues.
JAGM Missing Height of Burst (proximity) fuse
"The developers have reviewed all of the information within.
The altitude sensor, which measures the distance to the ground, is not a non-contact target sensor capable of detonating the warhead if it misses an air target.
Against ground targets in the game, this type of detonation would be useless. As we do not have infantry in the game against which such a detonation method would be effective.
The method for obtaining altitude above the target is not specified. Given its image, we have no reason to assume that this sensor was capable of responding to an aerial target. Secondly, that it had a circular radiation pattern that would have allowed it to respond to a target while flying past it.
As such, with the current information, this is not considered a bug."
Further Evidence of JAGM’s use of a Proximity fuse
"1: “AGM-114L-7 / -8A, C-UAS, Proximity Fuse”
Pictures from unknown sources are not reliable sources. Also, AGM-114L-7 != JAGM
2: navyrecognition
3rd party websites are not reliable sources.
The source says nothing about proximity fuse.
4
The source says nothing about proximity fuse.
5
The source says nothing about JAGM."
Ok, the argument is as follows; JAGM is acknowledged having a Height of Burst functionality, thus at very least some sort of altitude / distance used to inform HOB fuzing
"The Army is continuing to develop software enhancements to improve height-of-burst lethality. "
The target set for the JAGM incudes Helicopters and (slow) Fixed wing aircraft;
“Targets include tactical armor, boats, bunkers, buildings, caves, personnel in the open, rotary-wing and slow Fixed-wing aircraft, UAS and fast moving non-tactical vehicles.”
That’s as far as it goes for secondary evidence relating directly to the JAGM(Additionally 2nd last slide(PDF # 128) of the 2017 AUSA Redstone-Huntsville Missile Symposium also confirms C-UAS role for JAGM). Further supports this claim.
So we shall consider the Hellfire family as a whole, paying attention for features common to missiles that have a C-UAS mission. Thus we have;
The AGM-114L-7 & -8A
Which evidently has now been established to have some sort of Proximity (VT) fuse, and as a longbow derivate is MMW guided.
The is no external sensor bulge for a dedicated Radio fuse, nor would it need one since it already has an active seeker.
it can be mounted to the AH-64 and is used in a C-UAS role
2 Likes