peak PID indeed
AASM in game is like that guy on the highway : “oops, missed the exit, let me do a U turn real quick”
10 Likes
The issue I see with my earlier assumptions is that the correction limit isn’t necessarily indicative of seeker FoV
The bomb/missile compares what it sees with the scenery (around the target) that is stored in its memory
So the limiting factor here (apart from kinematics) is how much of the scenery around the target is stored in the missile’s memory and how big a stored scenery it can handle in terms of computational power required to do the image correlation
So (again kinematics aside) theoretically you could have the scenery / terrain of the whole earth stored in the missile and drop it at any arbitrary position around the earth and have it guide to and hit any other arbitrary position around the earth (since it can find its way to the target by first figuring out where it itself is at or looking at by comparing it to the stored scenery) …
I.e. unlimited correction (for GPS/INS error) capability.
Obviously that wouldn’t mean the missile has enough FoV to see the whole earth from all directions at once …
So the whole premise of my calculation was wrong …
Im curious howd theyd handle a massive FoV AASM. Target ID would allow it to only hit ground vehicles corresponding to the same type as initially targetted and avoid destroyed tanks, but prevent a player from being able to actually target a target specifically.
This would be rather odd but broken. On thr flip side, I still think they should set the seeker track rate to 0 deg/s, making it incapable of tracking a moving target, as there still seems to be no proof the missile can hit moving targets.
Is there any evidence for TV/IR guided AGM-65s being used against moving tanks?
There is another problem.
AASM takes only 2 pictures in 2 points, it does not have a continous track. 1 used to figure out where it is, and 2 to make sure it impacts the target. It will have troubles with moving things.
1 Like
7 Likes
Yes?
We don’t know anything about that, what is certain is that it receives a first picture before the shot and that the seaker is activated in the terminal phase, whether it only takes one image or not is never specified
We only know that the bomb can more or less become inactive if it doesn’t find its target.
The real question is, once the seaker is ignited and the AASM lands on its target, does the seaker remain focused on the target or does it just take one picture to find the target?
In the first case, this would probably mean the ability to track a moving target, but in the second case, it would only update the initially given position.
It’s about acquisition, not image capture, an acquisition can be done over a time period while a picture is instantaneous
The question is how the acquisition is done, if it’s just via a single picture, fine, the bomb updates its coordinates and captures the new position, but if it’s a longer acquisition, target tracking might be possible.
Still the same problem: if an image is returned for updating, is it just one image or not?
The document talks about real-time processing. Does that mean the software processes a single image or a series of images?
Moreover, here the word image is plural, so there is a flow of information/image which is transmitted to the control system.
Idk how many.
I would not expect them to be a great amount tho, as manufacturer themself say its usage is anti facility. Facilities tend to not move.
This is the problem, if the sensor follows a series of images focused on a target, if the target moves, the system should be able to correct its impact position in real time, but if it is just an image the position will only be corrected once.
I’m not saying that this or that idea is the right one, but we must avoid jumping to hasty conclusions.
I can not tell you how many pictures it takes. All I know it takes IR pictures, and does 2 acquisitions, each followed by a trajectory compensation.
Ok but how’s the Mirage 4000 or any other plane that can fight ARH because Gaijin didn’t bother bridging the gap?
This game doesn’t really operate on “nerfs” and balance other than withholding report implementations for balance consideration. If you think a plane needs a nerf, then you have to provide historical justification for it. European vehicles beating your favorite F-14s and F-15s isn’t a justification.
11 Likes
Almost garanteed its a single image taken twice in the terminal phase:
Following aquisition, an error vector is produced and new guidance coordinates are produced from said error vector. Its then redone 1 more time to meet the 1m accuracy requirements, which imo suggests that the process is not continuous and the imager does not have the resolution during 1st aquisition to hit its 1m accuracy req.
If the guidance was continuous, it would not need multiple aquisitions, and it would not produce itself a new set of target coordinates based on the estimated error vector.
2 images would satisfy the requirement for the plural to be used, this point of yours is just misrepresentation of the info to match your beliefs.
Not entirely true, the MICA is nerfed for balance for example.
1 Like