yeah, this is my gripe with this feture of optical lock, it somehow can’t even lock if ANYTHING near the circle of the seeker. strela’s probably the best use of optical lock since the seeker is way smaller.
2 Likes
Which; of course it is, because Russian Sekret Dokuments
Yeah, the pain of having imaging seekers modeled as contrast ones that can’t tell an aircraft from the building clear and far below it…
2 Likes
But Gaijin says, “They basically operate the same so really it’s fine, the ground clutter can be turned down… But we need exact figures otherwise buzz off”
1 Like
So I just found out the Spike missiles got a bit of a buff, so even if you stick just the cupola up or something, the missile can lock it and target the tank…
But the CSG’s can’t be added because ‘they can only target ships’… Right
2 Likes
Took You a while they did that 2 updates ago
1 Like
Look I don’t pay attention do it after they denied Japan more than once from getting the CSG because the “IR can’t track a tank” and I haven’t heard it being any better until now to be fair-
That and the fact the 2S38 of all tanks got a buff with this update while still overperforming
1 Like
The bug reports on both were rejected for the notion of mentioning clutter which I suggested to be reduced while even imaging seekers are still stated to have clutter. The difference isn’t the amount of clutter, but the way it functions.
On a contrast seeker an aircraft on the blue sky is a contrast to be locked, however if the ground is in the field of view, that is also a contrast. So if there is no way to specifically differentiate between different signatures the aim moves to the average position between them, since that’s the center of the perceived contrast.
On an imaging seeker the aircraft alone is differentiated after the lock, and can still be hit with the ground in the FOV. However if it is, for example, green and flies in front of a similar green background it can blend in, causing the seeker to lose lock. Similarly it might fly partially behind objects, which can obstruct and obscure it in ways that it can lose the lock.
However for this second point an initial lock would still be possible as long as the image of the partial aircraft contrasts its surroundings.
I’ve been told to make a full suggestoon to differentiate imaging seekers, but that might require a lot more sources to do and some very specific information I’m not quite sure where to find. While I don’t have time for it now, but I will get to it eventually.
3 Likes
I’ve seen a few users here use patent information for things like this, might be worth a shot.
Tons of ARH missile changes in 2.37.0.73 - AAM-4 also got a ton of changes, sustainer has also been added (finally)
I will do some tests and come back
4 Likes
Main booster also got stronger, lots of minor changes too. :D
Spoiler
from Zabi’s datamine
AAM-4:
- Wing area multiplier: 1.275 → 1.4
- Max fin AoA: 33.94° → 32.98°
- Max fin lateral acceleration: 33.93 → 32.11
- Distance from CM to stab: 0.125 → 0.25
- Mass at end of booster burn: 155 → 175 kg
- Force of booster: 20100 → 36800 N
- Burn time of booster: 7.5 → 3 s
- Added 10400 N 4.5 s sustainer
- Loft elevation: 7.5° → 20°
- Loft target elevation: -5° → -2.25°
- Loft angle to acceleration multiplier: 2.5 → 20
- PID proportional term: 0.0191 → 0.0061
- PID integral term: 0.0075 → 0.0445
- PID derivative term: 0.00045 → 0.00025
- Added timetable correction
- Range timetables changed
1 Like
2.37.0.73
NEW Test; 12km, Mach 1.16 head-on, 60km distance
Test Clip
NEW Test; 8km, Mach 1.1 head-on, 70km distance
Test Clip
NEW Test; 3.5km, Mach 1 head-on, 30km distance
Bonus Test; 8km, Mach 1.1 head-on, 35km distance
Test Clip
Overall, is still inferior in range and looses speed quickly yet again. The new sustainer / force increase is nice but still not enough. The Loft adjustments might also need further work as it seems to be too much. AAM-4 is now better for close distance (at least in time to target, against non-maneuvering ones, AIM-120 still has higher impact speed, which can be considered as an advantage against maneuvering targets).
12 Likes
At least it’s not a stick.
1 Like
so… looks we finally can carry 4x AAM-4 & 2x AIM-120A & 2x AAM-3?
AAM-4 for <20km fight, 120A for BVR?
1 Like
it looks like the AAM-4 in the close range test was fired substantially earlier than the 120 and thus arrived earlier. I think if the 120 was rippled off first among the set, it would show that it still has a better time to target.
on a side note, the AAM-4 had a really bad oscillation at the lower alt test as well which could be a factor thats causing the drag due to the control surfaces constantly making changes to AoA and thus causing more induced drag.
Japan was working on a lot of different designs. This included IR, Radio Guided missiles as well. Really the only one ever being tested was the Ki-147 and Ki-148(Harder to confirm this).
On one of the Japanese Coastal ships you have a thing that looks like a bomb hanging to the right or left side don’t recall and its a sonar of some sort. Shame Gaijin hasn’t implemented it as of yet.
The image below is an early one, not the latest
This is the new one.
3 Likes
I’d like to advertise a squadron. Our squadron heavily focuses on Japanese and other Asian military equipment. We have an affiliated and very active Discord as well (DM for invite)! We do a lot of research regarding Japanese aircraft as well, especially the F-2.
Some community members are a part of this squadron, such as @MAUSWAFFE and @WreckingAres283. @Fireraid233 is here too!
5 Likes