Apologies, I meant, did devs state they will not use “previous” iterations of missiles values to substitute for situations where it is not clear what the exact values are?
For example, MICA EM’s gimbal limits is unknown but devs used the Super 530D’s gimbal limits of 55± even if they’re not direct evolutions. Other examples exist in-game.
If you check most ARH missiles have 55 gimbal limit, dunno if correctly or not.
I should find better examples, but it isn’t the first time where Gaijin has re-used values not known from an earlier missile.
Where there is a total lack of evidence placeholders can be used, to my knowledge most ARH share the 55 degree limit. But MICA IR isn’t lacking in evidence. We have the seeker brochure.
Sure, but if devs give MICA IR the Magic 2’s placeholder of 60 deg a second track rate, it still fulfills what the brochure says.
I’ve never managed to convince them to use anything past the stated figure. And believe me I’ve tried with the greater than and more than stuff. It doesn’t fly.
Devs do always what they want first, I would’t take a word from non-devs. F-5 uses wrong documents to model its FM for example.
Thrust vectoring for EF is still more real than kh-38mt. Can’t wait to see it in the game.
Not that it will make much of a difference in the game, but a 90 deg/s slewing rate doesn’t necessarily mean a 90 deg/s tracking rate …
This is how fast the seeker can be turned by driving the motors at max speed and doesn’t involve any tracking …
cried in leo2a7v chassis having arrowhead lvl protection and acceleration speed of a 2a4
Starstreak still sat at mach 3 all these years later…
Any reason why the Eurofigther cannot use the LJDAM on the dual bomb racks?
Iirc, they probably could IRL, but only the Paveway IV is explicity marketed for them
I wonder if they ever tested an air launched starstreak from a fixed wing jet
Would be too hazardous. Between the frangible covers for the launch tube, and the expended kick motor, there’s a high chance that debris will strike the airframe at FJ speeds
Technically true, but it is the best indication of tracking rate that we have. Also if the seeker can be slewed at >90°/s by external commands I don’t see any reason it couldn’t be driven at that speed by the tracking system.
my rwr is already at 45%
Well, it really isn’t an indication of tracking rate
It only tells how fast the motors can slew the seeker
Of course when it can be slewed at 90 deg/s by external commands it can also be slewed at 90 deg/s by the internal tracking system.
But that’s not the point. The issue at hand is not how fast the motors can rotate the seeker, but rather how fast the tracking system can track targets.
And “tracking” involves a lot more than just sending rotation commands to the motors. Tracking is about finding the target and deducing the direction it’s moving and how fast etc.
It involves the sensor (frame rate) and a lot of processing.
Commanding the motors is the last step, just to keep the target within seeker FoV.
Now it might have a 90 deg/s tracking rate IRL, but I’m just saying you can’t deduce that from how fast the motors can slew the seeker.
What would the limitation be, say the target is aquired, then it will slew at whatever speed it can to keep said target within the seeker fov. Note the processing onboard asraam is one of it’s strengths. I dont forsee it struggling to track a target especially with a staring array as opposed to a tv scan approach abit like IRIS-T.
R-27T irl has track rate twice less than slewed by command, so sometimes there is a reason