“Sparrow roll” is kinematically defeating it, its the same thing. The missile cannot pull enough G’s to intercept that jet that rolled and pulled aggressively.
Sparrow roll is not a thing by itself. It’s just the act of kinematically defeating the sparrow by aggressively rolling and pulling while heading in roughly the missile’s direction at the same time
You are just arguing with semantics at this point
It is not. A sparrow roll is what people refer to the specific maneuver. Just kinematically defeating it is not.
You are the one confused between the two. A square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. A sparrow roll maneuver is a way to kinematically defeat a missile, but not all methods to kinematically defeat a missile is a sparrow roll.
Ok show me what you think the sparrow roll is
I’ve posted a video earlier.
You linked to a post with a video that doesn’t load. I don’t know if that’s only on my end.
Post a video of what you think the sparrow roll is so I can see what you mean.
Yeah it has been a while since I played it, but whenever a fox 3 is tracking you, it does a solid tone (not the launch tone, basically nothing triggers that, but instead like the search ping but constant) and it shows up as “LO” on the rwr. After a bit you learn to recognize it.
It is clearly on your end given every other player have been able to see that video. I’ve also noticing a pattern that everything “only happens on your end” too…
The launch tones i typically got from Mig-21s, Mirages, other phantoms, and rarely the phoenixes. When I got a launch warning for a phonix, I always had a solid tone beforehand or it popped up to the sides of my plane out of nowhere.
For me it only plays the sound, no image.
What do you mean?
Also is that video really about the sparrow? Its on the PL-12 thread.
PL-12 and Derby had different issues before which are now resolved, it was a combination of low G pull (like the sparrows) and autopilot bugs, probably due to how the missiles kinda tried to do a lofting trajectory even at low altitudes and went above the target, they reacted too little too late and missed since they often could not pull more than 18G
I think I was the first one documenting this issue on the forum, which was on the derby/R-darter years ago. Then the PL-12 also got similar bugs, but much later, which I also posted videos about.
It perfectly demonstrates the sparrow roll. And for a time PL-12s were rollable despite the fact that it outpulls sparrows and aim-120s.
Sparrow rolling is not inherent to the missile’s pull (aim-120s pulled less than pl-12s during this period and were not rollable anyways).
Outpulled off the rail, which at the speeds they were at, they didn’t reach high G overload. The when the missile got faster, they could not pull enough.
Incorrect
AIM-120’s always did more G overload than the derby after both were at speed. Which should not be the case.
AIM-120’s could reliably pull more than 20G whereas the derby and PL-12 could not
right.
I don’t think you understand that the max overload and fin AOA were not touched during the pl-12 nerfs. What was touched was the autopilot PID values which made the pl-12 overcorrect, leading to sparrow rolls.
You are literally free to look up the patch notes. Why are we lying when there’s literal patch notes around?
Is that statshark? If so its not reliable to do those comparisons to begin with.
The AIM-120B is pulling more G’s because it’s at a higher speed. G overload =/= tight circle
The PL-12 could pull a tighter circle because of the extra AoA pull off the rail, resulting in it being at slower speeds and lower G overload.
If you actually saw the replays back then, you would see that the PL-12 could not reach very high G overloads.
Here I posted videos showing how the PL-12 could not reach more than 20G’s back then, and also linked to much older issues from the derby.
Feedback on PL-12 series missile balance changes in update - Machinery of War Discussion / Aircraft - War Thunder — official forum
More reliable than you misusing your data tools, as many have pointed out. It’s like that time you’re like wow statshark inaccurate by 4x! then I pointed out that it was within 1% of your own calculations
You can dislike statshark. But to say it is wrong because of your own bias is your own issue.
Wow sure doesn’t look like 20Gs to me
The very same replay system that people pointed out is even more inaccurate? Missiles frequently reached 50G overload despite having only 20-35G on their cards.
So Statshark being inaccurate is bad, but eyeballing with WT replay using inaccurate overload values from said replays is fine?
And I’m supposed to take you seriously?
More baseless accusations, typical of you.
You are literally disproving actual IN-GAME replays with sensor view against your Statshark graph.
You could not possibly be more disingenuous.
This is not a thing if you take into consideration sustained G’s.
A very specific frame where it says a very high number is not representative of the reality of the missile behaviour, thats why I posted a video where you could clearly see that the missile didn’t reach abve 20G sustained turn when trying its best to turn into the evading target.
This is literally not the first time you show bias against statshark because you eyeballing with WTRTI is somehow more accurate.
Here’s even someone pointing out how WTRTI can be wrong:
In game replays that multiple people pointed out is inaccurate.
An inaccurate WT replay known for displaying overly high G overloads ain’t it either. And this is ironic for someone frequently using WTRTI still frames as proof of things.
would still be compressed to hell for air 25.7 at least for air. 20.0 would help ground a bit
Because it is. WTRTI takes data from locahost wich is inherently more accurate than statshark.
This is common knowledge.
But in the discussion we’re having about the missiles, I never mentioned WTRTI, I showed actual replays with sensor view. But you are trying to derail the argument with baseless accusations from.
More bad-faith behaviour, typical of you.
Statshark also use war thunder data and I’ve shown multiple times that it is within 1% of your own WTRTI value. This is just your own bias.
Because this is you showing bias to a “perceieved” inaccurate data site while endorsing other inaccurate data sites.
Yeah keep ignoring what I’ve said
