The missile is currently extremely overperforming speed wise after 2km of flight
But faster turret rotation, 60g overload and a much narrower FOV hopefully will make up for it.
this is a simulator design for a system the US did not acquire
the MIM-146 does already sport a 42g overload, it’s control surfaces in game prevent it from achieving 42gs, it will not be capable of higher unless gaijin thinks it’s wings are capable of such
This is compounded by gaijin putting a pull limiter on the missile during it’s boost phase
this data directly contradicts Oerlikon and Lockmart’s data on the MIM-146’s flight performance
this data is not for the US ADATS we have in game, thus the slew and elevation data will not be accepted as it is currently limited by the M242 mount on the vehicle which this simulation lacks
FLIR FOV is irrelevant to gaijin in the case of tank optics, they only take the values present for day sights into account
the myriad of radar issues with the ADATS has already been reported and accepted by gaijin, they have sadly not done anything about it though
No these are ADATS stats for the ADATS components, there is no difference other than the lack of a gun on top. It’s clearly stated in the report when they are using made up numbers.
MIM-164 is flying way too fast after the boost fase. This is 1989 performance; missiles are usually scalable to the user wishes, just like Roland could be tailored and evolved over time.
Didn’t Gaijin recently say that they would use FLIR as the baseline for optical performance?
Gaijin just used FOV to change the Mavericks, doing the same for ADATS would make the missile visible for longer.
This is official US data on ADATS from the horse’s mouth, it dosen’t get much better than this.
I don’t think you understand, the elevation and traverse issues have already been reported and denied by gaijin due to the presence of the M242, they have stated they will not give it it’s full range of elevation and traverse values due to the presence of the M242.
Still disagrees with the Oerlikon and Lockmart data which are first party.
News to me if thats the case, then I would be able to bug report the M1 series not having their digital zoom which is their FLIR zoom.
Missile seekers =/= tank optics per gaijin.
Its simulation data not official data.
Except for data from the manufacturer, which is what gave the ADATS it’s current stats.
It’s not a nerf nor a buff, it’s to make the vehicle accurate which I’m all for, there’s nothing wrong with it.
The issue is the devs sees bug reports as ways to balance vehicles/weapons which is just nonsensical. reports that result in a buff or a nerf shouldn’t matter. It’s a bug, not a suggestion.
I do agree that these bug reports do more harm than good because of how the devs foolishly view them.
They worked on behalf of the US Army with unclassified data provided by the US Army and Martin Marietta. The document is from the US Army’s own heritage archive.
Which manufacture data does it actually contradict? The bug reports I see feature a video, the top speed given in the document is very close to what is implemented in game, it just doesn’t retain the energy as well as is currently implemented
It’s the same, the SIMNET describes the “Primary area of interest” but up to a height of 5km, the in-game scan rate is wrong if it has max range regardless of source.
Elevation: Limits should then be applicable to the M3 chassis, Mine was in regard to the turret not the sight.
But my question was with regards to the missile performance which it was claimed manufacture data was available.
Sure let’s say we want the Max range scan function then the RPM should be reduced to 38-40 RPM. I know the height is not modeled yet, but the elevation is.
You took a vector of the rear end of the beam, the 50 degrees would be a much more accurate representation of the actual coverage, also the X axis on your graph is compressed compared to the Y axis which amplifies the error of using that vector method.
Well great now we have two seperate sourcess saying elevation should be increased and that it should be atleast 50 degrees.
I am just pointing out the limitation of your method and how the 50 degree elevation is closer to what the internal documents describe as “primary area of interest”.
Interesting given Martin Marietta was not the producer of the MIM-146, Oerlikon was the only actual producer until MM got consumed by Lockmart and Lockmart actually made a agreement to domestically produce the ADATS in the US, MM was a broker, nothing more.
This is why functionally every document you can find about the US ADATS, technical spec wise, are stamped with Lockmart and/or Oerlikon’s seals and not MM’s.
Burn time, kinematic range, elevation with cannon, optics, radar and so on, Devil already hit a number of them.
