Now you have two official answers that contradict each other. Which one is correct?
The later one given by the developers and not by a bugreporter who is less competent
So wouldn’t it then be much better to show Igla as having 8G overload rather than 10.2, if it’s limit is hitting a 8G maneuvering target? For simplicity of understanding for the average player.
Displaying a 63%-something value is not helpful to the player.
But since these missiles will often be used on targets that aren’t maneuvering but the missile still needs to change path, perhaps displaying a turning radius would be better.
The target is flying with a speed of 600 knots (about 1100km/h) and is turning with 7G-force. that is the targets G-force, not the missile.
lateral acceleration = turning G-force. not maximum G-force.
could you translate those words in the graph please?
No, 8g is target overload, not missile overload. The missile should have 2-3 times more
The dev blog itself clearly states available overload
What is “Available” to me, that means max. This is the issue, they are applying the average as the max. So over the course of the 17s flight time, it pulls only 13G. It should peak at 20-22G and then fall off to 13G by second 17.
The dev post should have said something like.
FIM-92 Stinger, ATAS(AIM-92) — Max Available overload has been increased from 10G to 20G. Average G of the missile will be increased to 13G.
1 Like
From above, the target parameters are 310 meters per second and an overload of 8g.
Then there are two curved lines, one labeled “kill zone” and the other “launch zone”
Maybe so, but agree, the problem here is understanding, not Russian bias, which a bunch of morons who couldn’t think with their heads accused them of here
The game’s interface and its informative is not great and I don’t know why they don’t write a max, but it won’t change the behavior of the rocket.
Their formula confirms that while the available stinger overload is 13g, the maximum is 22. They gave us what they asked for.
I just find it weird how the Stinger’s tracking is laughable, sometimes they overshoot or undershoot SLOW turning planes, shots that look to be easy kills, yet the missile just overshoots
you did the thing, it says on the document it’s secret… you just did the thing
So do you agree with me that it’s not helpful to display a 10.2G value because
- 10.2G is not the targets maneuver limit the missile can hit
- 10.2G is not the missiles maximum overload with which it can attempt to hit a non-maneuvering target
- 10.2G is based on an percentage value that the average player will not know, and it is difficult math to calculate.
- The speed of a missile affects their turn radius even if otherwise at same G as another different speed missile.
And all the above is completely setting aside that despite missiles looking missile shaped, they don’t perform identically.
Relax, it’s an old document, it’s no longer classified, it’s been used 100 times.
1 Like
No, there is definetly still an issue here. They have said time and time again, that the use of soviet sources to model NATO items can’t be done and vice versa.
They used a soviet missile data. Stated that “there is no way NATO can make anything better than the soviets” and used its data to change the data for a NATO missile.
They just assumed that all these missiles are basically identical, even though they use different tracking methods, likely made out of different materials and not too mention the west is routinely more advanced with these kinds of things. They even admitted that they have data stating that the max should be higher
and yet they still leave it lower. for no reason at all other than that it would leave the Soviets at a disadvantage.
5 Likes
yes, however the developer tried to explain that he felt it was a more useful parameter.
All the accusations are wrong. You can only scold for the strange idea of specifying just available overload, but not for “bias”
Is the Mistral worse than the Igla? They have higher performance, and significantly so.
The developer was talking about how he tried to show the same parameter in missiles.
Can you imagine if one vehicle was advertised with maximum speed and the other with average speed? What would you get from that comparison
I don’t think it’s bias, it looks like lazy development. They should’ve said it was the way it was for balancing purposes. But to write a devblog using “I guess” as a primary source is ridiculous. The Stinger has proved itself as an formidable area denial weapon against low flying and slow targets, yet in game they can miss a su 25 turning at 500kph.
There was a datamine posted here where Western missile guidance is better.
They have yet to state that the “max” is 20-22. They have only stated that the average is 13G with wording that implies the max is also 13G. They need to officially confirm, in no uncertain terms. That the max IS 20-22G, at the moment, the assumption and evidence states 13G
4 Likes
Yep, all of my misses using the ATAS have been I reckon from a lack of initial max G to get the missile onto target, not too mention the tracking is crap and they loose contact easily. Both could be explained by a lack of G to stay on target. We have a source stating that it can hit a target pulling 7G and to do that, you ideally need to pull around 2.5/3x that number. Which is about 20-22G
Flame puts it best
Lateral acceleration is how many g the missile can pull in a turn (axial acceleration is how quickly it accelerates to speed). The math also checks out because as a general rule a missile needs to be able to pull approximately 2.5x - 3x whatever the target is pulling in order to be able to hit. So to hit a 7g manoeuvring target the Stinger would need to pull around 18-21g, which lines up with the 20g stated in the first document.