The wing area multiplier being dropped is an odd decision from gaijin, and at least for the baseline IRIS-T, its fin AOA is much too low, so its not a stretch to imagine the SLM is in the same boat.
Baseline IRIS-T fin AOA is limited to 25.68deg in-game vs 38deg irl, roughly 67.6% of its IRL capabilities. This has been bug reported: Community Bug Reporting System
I also have a sneaking suspicion the fin distance from the center of mass might be wrong. Currently, distFromCmToStab is set to 0.2 (I assume meters?). This makes little sense, as the warhead, seeker, electronics, etc… are all located in the front of the missile, which should theoretically skew the weight towards the front, but even ignoring this bit of logic and assuming the CM is at the geometric center of the missile, the distance of the force vector imparted by the fins should be roughly 1.7m, which would give the fins significantly more leverage to act on the missile.
I made a report on the radar update rate, this is similar to another report that got passed as suggestion, this should serve as additional material to implement the needed radar mechanics for a <1s update rate
Gonna post this response here too but I just looked into the code and the TRML-4D isnt being treated like an ESA in-game. Its missing the blob of code that defines ESA’s in WT.
This is the one taken from the Rafales RBE2-AA:
What it does is it runs an invisible scan in the background of ur regular scanning that updates all targets within the electronic scan limits of the radar at a super high speed. So for the Rafale, it does it every 0.04s. Its why they have much more stable locks and its how they’re able to track targets outside their current search volume. The TRML-4D is completely missing this.
Depends on their speed and alt and range and all that. IIR should be able to pick up a target although I would be skeptical of it picking up a fast target that has low heat signature.
Unless you meant I should make a seperate report that specifies its missing the ESA functions entirely in-game? Cuz though its correct to say the update rate is too high rn, its kind of missing the crux of the issue, which is that its supposed to be an AESA radar, but is currently modelled as a pure mech scan radar…
i can give you good answer because im not an expert on this but it has pov of 0.25 should lock on after DL give it information and guide it all way via radar"
It only scans a 110 deg arc centered on the radars current direction. Should work in both modes though.
Its not something you select in-game, its basically a background process. Its why so few people seem to understand how to properly use the Rafales radar for example, because unless you know what its doing and how it works, there’s literally no real visual indicators its doing anything.
To explain the Type 81’s, what its doing is scanning 28 2.5deg bars that are 110deg wide, centered on the current radars centerpoint, and it does it every 0.04sec. Everything it passes over in that scan that already has a trackfile has their trackfile updated.
This is why the update rate and lock stability is incredibly high on ESA’s in-game, and its why it can continue to track targets that have left the current scan zone (the scan zone being what you see/define, its the area where you can pick up new targets).
Its basically gaijins form of the radar assigning individual beams to update multiple targets simultaneously.
I mentioned i got 185mm because I modeled the missile from the picture so that’s what I had to use to stay consistent and I had to mention it cause it was slightly different from the 180mm that’s circulating in the forum.
I frequently use pixel measuring to measure APFSDS and I know finding diameters accurately is always a challenge due to their small size. I never said it is exactly 185mm.
Then you came anouncing the diameter is 177.8mm and providing two low resolution renders as evidence.
After working in engineering/product development space I gurantee you marketing renders are often slightly different from the actual product (this can also happen with marketing props but it’s more rare).
The pictures are low resolution. In the first picture the diameter is about 43pixels so the measuring accuracy is 2.3% and in the second one it is about 20pixels so the accuracy is only 5%. For reference the difference between 185 and 177.8 is 4%.
You also said you used a length of 3450mm. First, there are no reliable sources for the length. Second, in the first picture you literally can’t see where the missile ends so you can’t accurately use its length. Third if you use your second picture and the well documented length of 2940mm for the normal iris-t you get a length of roughly 3370mm for the slm, so your post is already inconsistent with itself.
Also, what does ~7inch mean exactly? 185mm is less than 7.3 inches. In my opinion 7.3 is ~7. The point is you felt the need to sloppily correct something but ended up contributing nothing.
And no I didn’t “include the launch rails”, lol.
No it wouldnt, cuz the fastTWS zone is only ±55deg wide, centered on the radars current direction. So while the radar spins, the fastTWS mode will continue to update the targets that are within that ±55deg wide zone
