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.
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.
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!
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.
It’s more that when combined with an “Open Loop” Control scheme (by definition has no feedback channel, where a “Closed loop” does) there is no advantage to using Proportional actuators over Bang-Bang type.
Type 81 def gets flared. So I would assume the others do as well.
The strela is better in closer range because the missiles turn out of the tube and immediately start course correction and tracking as far as I know. So not every aspect, there is use cases where it’s better. Overall I would take the 81c for sure.
But, there is a pause with type81 c, and while the missiles are better than strelas that pause means you can’t always take the shot you want in close range and have to wait for a better one or It will miss because it failed to track well.
Thats because its likely not on IR lock but rather optical lock. In that instance, the only way you can defeat them in by physically putting something between you and the seeker. Like a line of trees or a hill.
They do get flared ?
I never really experienced that in the game, as people mostly either ignore the missile while flying straight just dumping flares and dying, or trying to dodge it and still dying.
I think my kill % against planes in Type 81 is easily above 98-99%.
Yes, Strela might be better at shooting down planes 400m away, but that isn’t really a realistic scenario.
