I have no idea, the only thing i know is that i haven’t personally seen more than one secondary source state mach 3 for the SLM. I don’t have any influence on those choices at all. the SLM being faster than the SLS makes logical sense, but sources are needed to be able to report it.
I don’t know, i don’t handle bug reports, but i’m guessing it is because the time to distance doesn’t specify enough surrounding information (like maneuver amount, speed of target, altitude or similar things just as random examples) for it to be reliable enough to get a number out of.
thats what confuses me, even if we were to take a stationary target into account it would need to go faster than mach 2, im literally talking about that there is not a single scenario where it could reach that far in 60sec with only mach 2, but i understand, things would probly be better with people like you in the bug reports and not whoever is in charge of it right now
I agree that you can’t get a precise number out of it… BUT
If I tell you my car can reach a place in a hour drive from my house and then you try it and it takes twice that time even while flooring it the whole time then you see the issue, right?
There isn’t a way to get a specific speed. But you can create some loft profiles, play with the weight and thrust and adjust the numbers until they match that report roughly. They have guessed a lot more than that with other vehicles, so I don’t see the reason for not doing it here as well.
Yeah that doesn’t say much at all sadly. "Engaged at " does that mean hit at that distance? does that mean the missile was fired when the target was at that distance and the target is then moving away from/towards the launcher? at what speed is the target flying towards or away from the launcher?
If the target is flying mach 1 towards the launcher for example then it travels 20 km in those 60 seconds so the missile meets it at only 10 km away (Random numbers just to show what i mean). There isn’t enough information at all to get any speed from that statement.
but i get what you mean, its still frustrating having to argue about the speed when there are so many sources saying otherwhise, just sad for us that diehl itself doenst put it into the marketing
It doesn’t say at what distance the target was hit though. the only time distance is mentioned is “engaged at”. it doesn’t say what distance the target was hit. and i can’t personally see them stating that those are the same, it’s an assumption from the reader which sadly isn’t good enough for a source.
I would like to point out that i am personally also on the same page as you guys, i want it to be mach 3 as that is the number i see almost everywhere, but i have yet to see more than one reliable source for it that isn’t third party or, a wiki page or a random blog. I did try to find a source for it myself just a few days ago but sadly couldn’t.
Even if the missile flew Mach 2 for the entire duration of the flight and did so in a perfectly straight line the missile would barely reach it’s effective range in time.
Now the distance to the target was “more than 30km” away, if we assume it was 31km and if my napkin math is correct than reaching 12km altitude somewhere during the flight increases the distance travelled to between 37km-44km.
That means the missile flew 37-44km in 60 seconds which gives an average speed of nearly Mach 2. Not a max speed of Mach 2.
i tried that aswell (current speed to 30km ) and time to 30km from the source, its about 60% difference, if you were to aply 60% to the 710m/s currently in game, o look we get ~1100ms and 60% is kindoff an underestimate considering our target isnt moving at all while theirs is
but getting an accurate speed from this math is impossible, however 60% is not just a simple error
