While i appreciate the fact that the devs are trying to understand what they are trying to manipulate, 7 (and i’m not kidding) sources stating the same 25G load should be enough.
If they can’t comprehend why something works or doesn’t work, then they should just accept the sources as they come, assuming they are reliable enough (which is the case here).
Doing this is suicidal. Lying in your advertisement never brings good reputation in the long run.
15 rotation per second isn’t exactly what i would call “very slowly”
“Better in equal proportions” ?
Mistrals and stingers don’t need to be “in equal proportion” to igla. They need to be as close as what open sources say, at least if gaijin want to respect their “historical accuracy” selling point. The matter of balance should be handled by BR and BR only
Unless if you’re Russia, that’s how they end up will all these unstoppable wonder weapons that look great on paper until they’re put to the test and turns out it’s not remotely as good as claimed because it was all just posturing, people lining their pockets, corruption and trying to appear tough rather than being tough and then you get rolled by a neighbor country you thought you could conquer in a matter of days, but who cares because people already made their money.
Oh, and of course they look good in War thunder as well since they blindly copy that propaganda as it suits them.
They’re just being jerks and not using their own made-up “averaging” formula for Igla, cause then it would make Igla perform ahistorically… the irony of which seems to be lost on them…
Small correction: The MBDA brochures state Mistral 2 is 32G and Mistral 3 is 30G
It was the director of missile production for Matra, lead engineer of the Mistral program and professor of missile engineering for Supaero, Rene Carpentier, which states Mistral 1 is 25G.
MBDA didn’t exist when Mistral 1 was in service, that was Matra.
He’s a random player, and may have a less than ideal understanding on how to read sources.
I intend to do Stinger tests tomorrow in War Thunder to see how off they seem to be.
After all, they should hit a 7G maneuvering target going at speed.
They are not “forced to” when they literally explained that they saw the figures sources said, then went to explained that due to the similar appearance of the control surfaces they assumed and guess based capabilities of Western MANPADS on the Russian system. When you consider what they said in the Abrams blog, this completely contradicts their statements and causes nothing but frustration.
It seems contradictory because of the Abrams dev blog for sure.
However, it is a fact they separate armor standards from everything else.
They have separate rulesets for separate systems, and that causes issues of misunderstanding, frustration, and situations like this one.
So while they’re not contradicting their missile source rules, it does seem like they’re being contradictory because of armor source rules being enforced in a previous article.
My response would implore the next Stinger bug reporter to demand that missile source standards be treated like armor source standards and that Russian sources not be used for NATO missiles.
Finally, GJ confirmed that they created all weapon systems in WT based on Russia standard with some nerf. Russia bias is not rumor anymore, it has become reality in WT now
xaxaxaxa)))))))))
Russian bias doesn’t exist, and Stinger still hasn’t been nerfed. Stinger just hasn’t been buffed more than 13Gs.
And if that’s inaccurate then it should be corrected.
This is an arbitrary application of rules. Even if we remove the Russian sourcing, “we assume” and “we guess” based on appearance is a terrible assessment and should absolutely be criticized by the community as it is now. It sets the precedence of allowing devs to deny sources based on personal views and this is frankly unacceptable. This isn’t even logical for balance either, since they could very well remove that 66.36% efficiency problem and buff the Igla for balance purposes. Gaijin devs have an incredibly bad tendency to deny changes when it comes to technology development. Look at the poor M41A1 turret traverse, it is lower than it should be, despite the A1 being made to correct the turret traverse issues.
Whew lad… Now that I have caught up with this flaming trash fire of a thread I have to say there are some truly “enlightened” takes from some people here. It’s almost as entertaining as the Abrams cope threads.
With that out of the way my only want out of all this rambling regarding stingers is for them to give Stinger K it’s datalink feature so I can engage helicopters at distances beyond 1.5km. it wouldn’t even been that hard of a mechanic to introduce since for practical gameplay purposes it would largely function similarly to the existing optical mode of the Strela and Type 93.
My biggest issue by far was that ATAS just never tracked if the target was too close. I assume because it was lacking that initial G overload to get onto target. Which is why the 20-22G overload is so important in my opinion. What the ATAS could do before was fine at longer ranges (though any improvements certainly will help) but it was that initial peak burn that was the primary issue (I think). Especially when engaging an air target within 1-2, maybe 3km
So that could be a key part to test. Because if it still sucks within that close range, then the need for the full 20-22G overload is just reinforced.
Tell it to people openly Gaijin that
“We need to favor Russia because we know western technology are superior”
Be a god damn man and honest I’m sure all of us will shut up and never mention Russian bias BS ever again
