Thread 63892458

Can real SPAAGs quickly and consistently destroy gravity bombs?
Say a Gepard had four FAB-250 loosed on it from 8 km away, would there be even odds or better of them being hit by its fire before they impacted?

>>63892458 (OP)
Yeah very easily in fact.
Radar return from bombs is great since they're round and steel, their trajectory is very easy to predict and since they come in from high altitude they're also easy to detect early.
They're not terribly fast either.

>>63892458 (OP)
This pisses me off about the game too, but it says the shells of the AeroSentry are prox fused and they do have datalink guidance I guess. But I feel all the guns in the game are just way too accurate, at least without their own radar emissions. Even ground fire from vehicles can hit you pretty accurately at around mach 1

>>63892471
In this case, the SPAAG in question has no onboard radar itself; just a datalink connection.

Better question is why would anyone use GPO-500s

>>63892514
Best weapon to use against ships, they completely mog any of the AShMs in the game since they can eat a lot of gunfire and can't be tracked by IR missiles. Dive bombing attacks or low level bombing at mach speeds will help a ton too. Otherwise, they're good for structures like factories since they can one shot them.

>>63892522
They patched CIWS to fix the bug where they didn't take into account gravity arcing bomb paths and I'm pretty sure GPO-500s will be destroyed by a single shell. If they won't, do you have a video or a dev saying they can take multiple hits? That would indeed be very useful.
>Factories
Don't you always sacrifice more than one PAB-250 for a GPO-500? Why not jut hit the factory with 2-3 PAB-250 and maintain the flexibility to hit more small targets if presented with the choice?

>>63892529
https://youtu.be/RguKXG_LjYE?t=481
You can see it here, the carrier gets three direct hits on the bomb and it survives to make impact. GPO-500s eat more damage than missiles do at least. As for the factory thing, in my experience it's always been a oneshot for factories using the GPO-500s; but I could be misremembering there. I guess it's ultimately preference, do you want big game hunting with GPO-500s or do you prefer the flexibility of the PAB-250s? GPO-500s could also bomb convoys since they also have a bit of blast, but I wouldn't rely on it myself.

>>63892546
>You can see it here, the carrier gets three direct hits on the bomb
Am I blind? I see some of the rounds going off but none appear to be "direct hits". They mostly seem to be behind the bomb as well.

>>63892579
Look at the bottom left bombs here, they get hit a couple times by the airbursting shells, and I think these are the ones that hit right in front of the bridge. That's on me for not being clear about it.

>>63892593
I'll definitely have to test using them as anti-SPAAG/CIWS weapons, that's really cool if it works but damn the game should mention that.

>>63892605
You'll still have to drop a couple of them, a single bomb will still get shredded by an AeroSentry unless you're right up it's ass or dive bomb on it. Degrading radar coverage will also help bomb/missile survivability in general, as whatever you're trying to blow up will have to acquire the target first and will shoot less accurately at it without datalink/radar. Also a tip for ship hunting, if you shoot out the radar with a good ARAD missile or sheer luck on hit location, the CIWS will have a harder time acquiring and shooting whatever you throw at the ship.

Loading up some Darkreaches with Tusko-Bs to skullfuck a carrier group with friends is one of the most fun things I've done in an air combat game. People get hyper autistic about War Thunder, but I think Nuclear Option found a good balance between sim and arcade.

>>63892621
War thunder retards need to go die
God, how can anyone play that grinding sim?

>>63892621
I haven't had much luck with Tuskos myself, but I'm also a pirate so I'm just playing the game by myself.

>>63892628
Autism and addiction, it's no different from people who play gacha games.
>>63892635
It really depends on how much air defense is around your target. Six Tuskos spread across two aircraft seemed to consistently kill destroyers.

Also, F-14 equivalent when? We have all these advanced aircraft, but if they're really going to split planes between the two factions, PALA deserves and F-14.

>>63892655
>Also, F-14 equivalent when? We have all these advanced aircraft, but if they're really going to split planes between the two factions, PALA deserves and F-14.
Personally, what I want more is a dedicated attacker craft. Something more advanced than the Compass or Cricket, but also cheaper than the Ifrit and not a rotary wing like the Chicane. Probably somewhere around the cost of the Revoker or something. Oh, and cluster bombs.

>>63892721
Yeah I want something that can carry 30~ bombs but can also turn. Give it the RCS of a building and the IR of the sun.

You'd have a better chance of surviving that scenario by just jumping out and diving into a ditch.

>>63892481
Datalink doesn't really make a difference either way, if the bomb is in gun range then a modern SPAAG would be unlikely to have trouble with it. Bombs are effectively just cruise missiles with a little higher RCS but falling instead of flying in terms of intercept difficulty.

>>63893144
Yeah but I'd imagine you'd have a harder time without onboard radar right? Relying entirely on optical sighting seems like it'd be a bit difficult, especially if the craft dropping the bombs was going at mach speed.

>>63892458 (OP)
If they can shoot down a plane why would they not be able to shoot down a bomb?

>>63896437
plen big
bom smol

>>63892458 (OP)
Whut gaem?

>>63896712
Nuclear Option, near future simcade game. Not as autistic as DCS and not a grindfest like Warthunder

>>63894088
Datalink doesn't mean electro-optical only, it just means that the sensor platform is not directly attached to the SPAAG itself. Yes it would be more difficult to shoot down most things with no radar because you don't really get range information unless you have a laser rangefinder, but it's still not a crazy ask. If the aircraft is low enough that a falling bomb becomes a difficult target then the aircraft is likely a much simpler one to fire at before it drops the bomb. The reason it's not particularly feasible irl is because most aircraft are going to drop 2-4 bombs at a time so you don't have time to engage each and every one before it hits the ground

>>63897219
>The reason it's not particularly feasible irl is because most aircraft are going to drop 2-4 bombs at a time so you don't have time to engage each and every one before it hits the ground
That's the rub with this game. the AeroSentry is able to acquire and shoot down a good chunk of iron bombs if you're doing level flight unless you're going super low or dive bombing it. It acquires and destroys them really fast. But that's kind of a general gripe I have with the game, that land units are very accurate and very trigger happy. I don't think they have unlimited ammo; but it certainly feels like it sometimes.

>>63897286
They do have limited ammo, but they are almost always close enough to an ammo truck to get resupplied. Target those first and like half the base blows up

Related to the AeroSentry, I feel like the lynchpins and the new kingpins just aren't worth it anymore now that you have to lase targets with them. Kinda feels hard to justify their use when everything else in the game is fire and forget.

>>63897286
>But that's kind of a general gripe I have with the game, that land units are very accurate and very trigger happy
aside from the Stratolances immediately shooting at everything they see, it makes sense. N.O. takes place in a fictional near-future world where all military objects are united in a perfect Any-Sensor-Any-Shooter network

>>63901940
they're fun for hunting helicopters

Can proximity fuse fragmentation or AHEAD pellets destroy an aerial bomb?
It seems like there are not enough elements to cause explosive destruction.

>>63905981
Generally speaking no.

>we need to maximize the number of dead marines per sortie and have maintenance crews passing out from fatigue
>say no more senpai

>>63907415
Shut your whoremouth. Tarantula did nothing wrong

>>63892621
Shill me Nuclear Option. I found GHPC to be my tank fix, but lacking online play it feels more of a toy than a game so I always end up playing once every blue moon.

>>63892628
>how can anyone play that
You get roped in because F2P, large playerbase, and huge diversity of aircrafts and time periods that tickle your historical autism; I do believe that the core gameplay is actually good and first tiers are genuinely fun, then you get fixated with some top tier aircraft you want and by the time you realize it's a shit game you're addicted. In a sense it's a predatory system because it thrives on whatever emotional hole people try to fill with it, and it takes an enormous amount of frustration and disappointment to finally break out of that cage, plus some luck that something in the victim's life finally turns out for the best so the WT drain on you gets exacerbated.

>>63907760
>Shill me Nuclear Option.

>>63907760
Most importantly, Nuclear Option is not a simulation game. It's best to think of it as an Ace Combat+ where things like radar actually matters and all aircraft have realistic weapon limitations. It has deep enough autism for your weapon loadout to affect your RCS or your fuel levels to affect your takeoff ability. It's doesn't have clickable cockpits like DCS or require you to turn start all the individual systems in the aircraft, instead you just spawn in ready to go and can taxi to the runway. It also has a good mission editor and downloadable liveries, so you can cover your planes in Hatsune Miku skins of you want. It's worth checking out a video or two, and you can always buy it and refund it in two hours if you don't like it.

>>63907415
>maximize the number of dead marines per sortie
Literally nothing else is capable of killing more per sortie with its 500 round guided 76mm magazine
> and have maintenance crews
Why would it have maintenance crews if it never successfully lands?

>>63912856
>Hatsune miku
WEAK

>>63910030
>>63912856
Thanks. I bought it and I'm doing the tutorials. It feels very War Thunder, but slightly more autistic. I love it. Control scheme is a bit weird though, and having to press enter to select the markers is retarded.

>>63913720
Rebind it
I have select target as F and deselect as shift+F since I usually am not using afterburner equipped craft. I should probably change it to ctr+f though.

>>63913452
>Literally nothing else is capable of killing more per sortie
???

>>63913817
You could theoretically kill 520 vehicles with the AGM-48 + 76mm on the Tarantula, a few more with the .50
Without deliberately clustering vehicles more than they ever normally are you couldn't hope to replicate that with a Darkreach, even with full 250 kt loads.

>>63913730
Another thing I'm having trouble with, being way too used to WT, is the fact that mouse aim gives a deflection and not a target heading, meaning that every time I look around the aircraft keeps on carrying it's maneuver so more often than not I end up upside down and/or on a collision course with the ground. I'll try it on the Deck, maybe the gamepad controls are better.

>>63901940
The kingpins are pretty good for taking out ships since they such a large warhead and are pretty zippy. The lynchpins are however suffering pretty badly since their main use was to absolutely carpet an area with munitions they still kinda work against ships at least

>>63914076
I highly highly recommend a cheap HOTAS setup like an X45. You can get those for like 50 bucks

>>63901940
Lynchpins were kinda disgustingly good but I do miss them as a general purpose "fuck this shit" tool

>>63914134
I miss killing RADAR SAMs with them by popping them over a hill via datalink

>>63914100
I can't find a HOTAS that won't break the bank. The game runs great on the Deck however, I didn't expect it, and the flight controls are excellent with the gamepad, much better than mouse and keyboard.

>>63914076
>>63914647
I've heard that the game plays very well with an xbox controller on the PC

AGM-99s which are basically just Harpoon Missiles have a huge handicap in that they pop up before attacking, is this purely a downside IRL too?

>>63910030
I just want to clarify for any marketers in the thread that this post right here convinced me to buy your game

It's weird how every plane in NukeOp is based on a failed military bid or a combination of two IRL aircraft, but then there is the Medusa which is kitbash of like 5 different things with no real world analog whatsoever.

>>63915809
Ifrits are made for sex

>>63915438
Is there any reason why you'd want AShMs to pop up? Isn't the waterline exactly where you WANT big holes to be?

>>63914100
I use a Dualshock with DS4Windows so I can map the touchpad to do things as well, and it works pretty well.
>left stick is roll / pitch
>right stick is view
>triggers are yaw
>bumpers are target / deselect
>triangle / X is throttle
>square / circle is change weapon and fire
>d-pad is zoom, brakes, and change countermeasure
>LS click is deploy countermeasure
>RS click is center view or padlock target
>clicking touchpad is map
>PS button is gear
>share and options is view change and start menu
>flicking touchpad left / right is radar and stability assist
>flicking touchpad up / down is thrust vectoring
>have back paddles repeat d-pad for zooming in and out
Crazy how many inputs this little thing has with a bit of creativity. I sold my HOTAS because this is just more convenient. I might try it on DCS but I can't be bothered to make 300gb of space.

>>63915823
Pop up is actually an evasive maneuver just not a particularly good one.
While waterline hits are great, you can basically disable most modern (and NO) ships with any hit above the waterline due to the huge amount of delicate electronics up there. Hit a tico or burk in the forward superstructure and it's FCR is gone a long with the bridge which means the ship is effectively sunk and only really useful for picking up survivors at best

>>63914647
I picked up my X45 for like 60 bucks from half priced books and I can regularly find them unopened for sub 100 bucks on eBay. It's got 90% of what any newer setup has and besides some slight stick drift I love mine.
I should try it out on the deck then since I have one.

>>63918826
Rebinding buttons around is mandatory. For instance I rebinded the target select to R3, or you just can't easily look around and press the default button. Also, back buttons (L4 L5 R4 R5) don't get detected by the game, and you have to bind the keyboard keys to those buttons through the Deck's own controller settings instead.

I'm having a blast with this game, but damn the chopper mission is hard, not to mention there's no chopper tutorial.

How many Mark 82s can an F-16, F/A-18, and F-15 carry at maximum?
I wanted to know how the PAB-250 loadouts compare to real life.

>>63919791
uh like 4 10 and 13 iirc

>>63919791
Actual combat loads, 8 for the falcon (tho more than 4 is rare), 9 for the hornet, 10 for the super hornet, 12 for the strike eagle.

>>63920521
>>63920456
Damn, so everything in game has a fuckload of bombs. I think you can get over 20 in the Ifrit.

>>63920528
I'm pretty sure you are thinking of PAB-125s or 80s, not 250s

>>63920456
You can put 12 Mk82s on an F-16.

>>63920531
18, I was close

>>63920541
You can, but you really shouldn't, and I don't think more than 8 is authorized anymore.

>>63920545
Setup