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.
1 Like
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
5 Likes
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
Exerpt from the article
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.
8 Likes
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.
3 Likes
It’s got 51! People also with “similar issues” so it should be pretty visible, considering the average is 4~10 or so
1 Like
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)
5 Likes
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.
1 Like
this is what warthunder should be like. figuring out every single weapon instead of pasting vehicles and adding unhistorical things
I didn’t read anything, I didn’t read a shit but I have a question. Does it comes to US?
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.
2 Likes
you should already know that doesn’t mean anything. M735 still hasn’t been fixed off a fake bug report.
2 Likes
Oh, but they fix bugs on a weekly basis, you see!
Like that bug where, uh… a co-axial machine gun had the wrong name. Or that one where a weapon had the wrong name on the X-Ray view.
So don’t be so nitpicky! Just because they don’t fix the (severely impactful) bugs that interest you, it doesn’t mean that they don’t fix a plethora of (mostly inconsequential) bugs!
3 Likes
they have documentation stating the stringer had 20-22g overload. instead they said nope it can’t do this, because the igla can’t do this.
3 Likes
I’m not arguing this point, btw. I was just responding to your question, not making a statement on what the current state of things are. :)
I don’t have enough knowledge on this topic to really say either way. I recently learned about boom-boom actuators (in relation to laser-guided bombs) and the issues with the control method, and if the Igla does indeed have this, but the Stingers don’t, then this certainly seems like something that needs to be fixed.
As far as I understand, the only reason or the main reason to even pick boom-boom actuators for the guide fins is that they’re much simpler to make and thus far cheaper than other types. It’s not because they’re in any way better performing.
But that’s all just based on my limited knowledge.
generation-3-stinger-and-mistral.pdf
somehow gaijin devs think they know more about the missile than the people who make / use them.
5 Likes