Combined plane maneuverability is not modeled at all. If it were, not only would the Magic 2 be 50G, but the R-73 would be buffed to 60G.
So breaking the game was the solution? At least why didn’t they add the Jaguars in the same patch? Hmm… Japanese bias?
Systematic bias is a myth that some people want to really stress out into existence. You see what you want to see. But Gaijin acting clueless and dumb is a fact and nothing new.
Occam’s Razor: Don’t attribute to malice what could be attributed to recklessness.
[Yes I know it’s not recklessness in the official quote.]
2s38 is classes as an spaa by the russian government im pretty surte
So if I understand this correctly, you only know the Peak G overload of Mistral, FIM-92, and FN-6s. As for the 9M39 Igla, you know both Average G and Peak G. So in a nutshell you made a sort of ratio of Average G and Peak G in order to calculate the Average G of Mistral, FIM-92, and FN-6s?
If my understanding is somewhat accurate, I believe it is a pretty fair thing to do considering the missiles are similar enough and the game’s technical limitations. Unless I am missing something huge, I assume the people complaining are ignorant or simply don’t understand, especially considering Mistral, FIM-92, and FN-6s have been buffed to be proportionally better than the 9M39 Igla in accordance with the open sources.
Mistral: 25.0 MaxG x .6366 = 15.9 AvailableG
FIM-92: 20.0 MaxG x .6366 = 12.7 AvailableG
9M39: 16.0 MaxG x .6366 = 10.2 AvailableG
Blockquote
They Stingers were buffed.
Except they really aren’t.
as long as everyone here knows nothings gonna change cause its Russian propaganda, we might as well stop playing any other nation and only play Russia
Wow, and I was having an okay day before seeing this.
Then based on this post, there is virtually no incentive to upload primary or secondary sources that are not Russian equipment in nature, since Gaijin is very clearly basing NATO equipment specifications on existing Russian ones and their own feelings on the matter, instead of other open sources…
Despite stating they do not wish to do so not one post before. The double standard on display here is heinous.
Normally I think it is acceptable to give Gaijin the benefit of the doubt since many of the modern vehicles in service in the game are classified and difficult to find real sources on (despite the many, MANY instances of vehicles that are not Russian being artificially gimped or are not un-nerfed, and vice versa where Russian vehicles receive buffs or changes based on circumstantial evidence at best simply because it is beneficial to their operation), but this is an admittance on Gaijin’s developer team that they simply refuse to respect actual open sources THEY admit to in their post, and instead choose to go with their own thoughts and judgements on whether equipment specifications should perform to a certain level.
“They look similar externally so therefore they could not possibly have better aerodynamic performance” has got to be the dumbest argument made I have seen in this game.
If we’re going by that logic, then since R73 has very tiny fins compared to AIM-9M Sidewinder, it could not possibly achieve the performance we see in-game. But we do not see any changes of this nature for Russian equipment, where the performance is negatively impacted because NATO sources claimed that the equipment was inferior compared to those stated by Russian ones, or even changes based on “we assume” or “we believe”.
This is such a massive spit in the face of bug reporters and people who gather sources to send to Gaijin, as well as people who actually curate those sources on forums and etc. It’s downright disrespectful.
This goes beyond the missile specs in question. If you are going to base equipment specifications on what YOU believe to be factual, why bother asking for Non-Russian sources at all? All you are doing is wasting people’s time and forcing divides in the community. You are pissing on everyone (and especially the people who actually gather and collate sources in the first place) and do not even have the decency to call it rain.
Generally I think it is a waste to write in forums where Gaijin will almost certainly 99% censor and ignore, but when you take people’s efforts and time and simply toss it into the rubbish bin like it’s used tissue paper, that I feel, is incredibly offensive.
Everyone already knows this and everyone except the regular die-hard gaijin shills have criticized their logical inconsistency. They say that they listen but it seems they only listen to one thing.
Technically yes, but I think the worse problem is favoring Russian sources about Russia’s use of crappy technology (Bang-Bang) in the Iglas, concluding that NATO missiles using better technology (PID) on the Stinger or Mistral must have the same limitations of the crappy technology, and then ignoring how stupid they sound saying so.
similar while 1 has 8 time the amount of battle and thus experience with the vehicle… So no, they aren’t similar, not even close.
A very good explanation of Bang-Bang and PID
Although I agree with your statement, I am simply worried that this will set a bad precedence that will bleed into other equipment eventually, if not already. I am confident Gaijin knows exactly what game they are playing with the community at large, and to them, it probably does not sound stupid at all.
In my opinion though, and the reason I even bothered to post at all, is that Gaijin has more or less admitted to ignoring sources if it suits their needs, meaning if true, there is no reason to ever submit source reports anymore unless it is for Russia, and only if it positively impacts their general characteristics and gameplay. Basically, asking for “bug reports” from the community has always been a charade just to trick players into thinking their opinions are being heard and accepted, when in reality it is being cherry-picked and the rest are burned in a fire pit or forever marked for obscurity.
How long are the mistrals and stingers at their top speed?
Not exactly, they are using the Peak G numbers they mentioned from the open sources for the Stinger and Mistral. What happened is that they didn’t have the Average/Available G numbers for the Stinger and Mistral so they practically made a simple ratio with the numbers from a very similar missile they do have the Available/Average G and Peak G values for, the 9M39 Igla.
except the 22G and 25G values for stinger and mistrals aren’t peak maneuvering.
shows that you (and i don’t mean to be rude) didn’t understand the problem, since nobody is denying the fact that a slow missile won’t pull its maximum overload.
The matter at hand here is the way control surfaces are steered while the airframe of the missile is rolling.
BTW i’m less familiar with stinger, but it also applies on said missile, since they work similarly
I don’t know the exact number, but it’s likely not for very long relative to its guidance time at least.
We have to consider how long it takes them to accelerate and how long the rocket motor with its remaining fuel from accelerating keeps the missile at its top speed.
I feel like you are missing the issue of this thread. People are upset because they are guessing despite the evidence in front of them because the fins “look similar” to another system. It is completely disrespectful to people who scour and submit reports only to have them tossed due to “we feel” and “we guess”.
It seems like that would be something you would want to know, as a lot of the time the average is irrelevant when you only need a few seconds of high G performance.
Well, to be fair they were forced to make an educated guess due to a lack of information, and this is probably as close as they can get with the information they have.