Strela is 10.3, at 10.3 CAS exceeds Strela missile range by at least 5km.
Strela has never been a guaranteed kill.
If you use Strela at top BR you’ll never get frags with it, it’s physically incapable of even matching Q-5L and Super Etendard CAS range.
why are you always acting up the only threat to cas is sam and not other interceptors (aka fox1, fox3 slingers). You literally cannot fly high(especially above 5.5km on non winter maps) if theres a guy with iq of two digits, they’ll be immediately launches fox3 which you either fly high go defensive or just have to hug deck and abuse multipath. After that, launching any a-g ordinance beyond strela range at deck level cause ordinance missing.
where my AGM-114L (FNF)
Dying to an interceptor is one less person on the enemy team helping their team.
A team of mine almost lost a match because they kept spawning in air after I told them to stop.
If a single CAS plane even forces 1 enemy to spawn air, that’s 1 less enemy to fight during the match unless they willingly respawn or die to SPAA.
@USAARMY369
At BR 15.0.
EO shouldn’t work through cloud cover.
I’m quite sure it’s not a SWIR sensor, so clouds would provide both IR and daytime EO protection because if I remember right it uses a contrast seeker.
So if you’re saying it works through clouds, this is wrong.
Kinda funny if it’s true that a 10.3 Russian SAM is better than Israeli and Japanese top tier SAM systems lol.
It aint about dying to an interceptor which not the thing i was saying, it’s the problem you cannot just fly high enough to give a-g munitions enough loft and energy to reach strela meanwhile outranging it.
And if you think forcing anyone on the other side spawning an interceptor( which at 12.7 its pure multirole fighters still spawning with full cas loadout), so is spawning spaa should be same to you which means 1 less enemy to fight on the ground but that interceptor part turned into another cas problem to you.
Strela is 10.3 not 12.7, so being 10,000 meters up with your 16km range GBUs when all you need is 7km since Strela missiles can’t even climb 10,000 meters let alone 7.
Holy necromancy, why is this thread even being revived after having been dead for almost two years? o.O
Wouldn’t it be better to create a new thread on the topic if there’s more stuff to discuss on the matter? You can always link to the original, if relevant.
The “devblog” threads can carry more weight with the devs than a regular thread as they are monitored more actively and creating a new thread when an existing relevant one already exists is considered spam.
The fact this thread is still going after 2 years though, clearly shows the issues this devblog attempted to address were clearly not
I have a growing feeling that it’s obvious that accepted “Suggestions”,(like the maneuverability report, Lack of the Optical Contrast mechanic and lock-on range) don’t get triaged the same way as regular reports do, so tend to be left languishing for whatever reason.
I’m sure @Gunjob explained the difference between Submitted Reports and Suggestions at some point (could really stand to be specified in the reporting guidelines topic as well) in one of the various topics. But from what I recall the delineation that caused the report to be a suggestion and not a Report is the use of Historic sources, I just wish that there was some way to elevate them considering that it directly contradicts an actual Article they have published, as they directly state that they were willing to review additional info, and explains where they are making errors in their assumptions about said systems
Just look at the number of times assumptions are made in the following excerpt
For other MANPADS systems, open sources indicate a higher overload such as 18, 20 and even 25g in the case of the Mistral 1 MANPADS. However, these MANPADS systems have only slight differences in the area of aerodynamic surfaces compared to the 9M39(There are significant functional differences), so a multiple increase in average achievable overload compared to the 9M39 cannot be expected
Why?
We believe that the slightly higher overload of other MANPADS systems is mainly due to the slightly higher maximum speed(again Why?) of the missiles in comparison with the 9M39 MANPADS missile. Therefore, we assume that for the MANPADS FN-6, FIM-92 and Mistral, the documents
What documents? Why is this even a Valid comparison?
indicate the peak overload achieved at the moment when the rudders are in the maneuver plane.
The FIM-92 does not Use Bang-Bang actuators, or an Open Control loop, like the Igla / FIM-43 does as detailed in the above report
With this assumption, the average available overload for the half-cycle of rotation of these MANPADS will be 63% of the peak and will be consistent with the data on the available overload of the 9M39 MANPADS.
It’s erroneous as per the report and supporting documentation provided.
Within the game, due to technical limitations, even in the case of single-channel relay control, we use two-channel proportional control of missiles.
This is a technical limitation of using PID control and using it universally and is otherwise understandable.
Therefore, the maximum overload for the autopilot of MANPADS missiles in the game was set to the average overload of a real missile over a half-period of rotation.
This is suitable for those that use Bang-Bang actuators and and open control loop, not for those that don’t.
I sort of wish a Content Creator would pass it on though the various backchannels we know they have, but it’s not sexy nor does it really have much of a felt impact even considering it’s scope.
Yeah… I’ve seen too many reports that would be meaningful improvements (and not necessarily to just a single nation/vehicle) just never get resolved.
Its pretty clear that, unless there is significant player interest in something getting fixed. There is a good chance it wont be.
It’s got 51! People also with “similar issues” so it should be pretty visible, considering the average is 4~10 or so
I actually doubt that vote system thing actually does anything. Instead its people complaining on the forums about something and the CMs passing it along that gets the most attention (like F-15Es engines)
It probably draws the attention of The Technical moderators, so draws attention to it for entry into whatever back end Gaijin actually use. Past that I don’t think it does much but Who knows if they are actually linked in some way.
Also
A high score really isn’t a good sign, considering both are above One in 22 (95%) Something is probably up.
this is what warthunder should be like. figuring out every single weapon instead of pasting vehicles and adding unhistorical things
It, being what?
If by it you mean the proposed changes, then yes.
As per the end of the post:
Also, it’s already been implemented years ago.
you should already know that doesn’t mean anything. M735 still hasn’t been fixed off a fake bug report.