Because Gaijin does not allow the emergence of weapons more powerful than Russia, if there are, they will force the balance
6 Likes
So, they use Russian document to prove that western source is unbelievable higher number, but same time says that the Russian document on Abram’s armor is unbelievable higher number as well
10 Likes
The hypocrisy in posting this is palpable, you said in the Abrams devblog that russian sources are not reliable on western equipment. However, you use russian sources on the 9M39 missile to make assumptions that are easily disproven by western sources that gimp the stinger and mistral to ridiculous levels.
Source 1: CTTO/6/5/Air CTTO Jaguar Tactics Manual 3rd Edition
This British manual provides details of the various threats a Jaguar pilot may face. It states that the maximum lateral acceleration of the Stinger is 20 g.
Source 2: Generation III: Stinger and Mistral - US Défense Intelligence Agency presentation
This presentation states that the manoeuvrability of the Stinger is 22 g.
Whether all of this is to push one nation to be superior or just gross incompetence is irreverent.
Fix your bug reporting process and use a panel of unbaised military experts outside of the company to make these decisions.
16 Likes
Help me, please. Which source indicates that the stinger and mistral are used PID control?
Someone posted a photo of gaijin files themselves containing pid values for mistral and stinger but not one for igla. You can try searching on the forum.
It was me, here is the post: Why Gaijin is wrong about the Stinger (it should be 20g in game) - #44 by SpeclistMain
5 Likes
It turns out that if the developers delete these values from the files, then missiles will lose PID control IRL. Case closed. It’s so simple.
The PID stuff is in my post above, mind you that while the guidanceAutoPilot for all missiles has PID, they’ve modeled the orientation (i.e. the rotating part of the missile for the Igla) to use Bang-Bang which causes the low G-overload issues. The Stinger and Mistral do not use Bang-Bang to control their stabilizers/fins, so they should not have such artificial reqAccelMax debuffs.
My man what I was saying is that by Gaijin’s own admission they use PID.
PID (proportional–integral–derivative) control and PNG ( proportional navigation guidance) is two different concepts. PNG is missile guidance law. PID (like bang-bang) is steering surface control method.
All manpads in game uses PNG. Igla uses bang-bang steering surface control method.
Simple question. Which source indicates that the stinger and mistral are used PID control?
Because if your source is dev files, then you must accept that their calculations are correct.
Your screenshot with mistral and stinger shows “GuidanceAutopilot” section, but in 9m39 screenshot you ignore this section. However it contains same not zero props.
(Responding to both quotes above) Yeah, which is why the Igla’s G overload is lower than the Stinger and Mistral, because they don’t have to use Bang-Bang for the fins.
No, I’m saying by their own admission the Stinger and Mistral use PID and not Bang-Bang for the fins, therefore their artificially low G-overload should not exist.
Their argument was:
- Igla uses Bang-Bang to control fins → G-overload is lower due to this
- Stinger and Mistral have similar fin shapes to Igla → They have the same G-overload because of this similarity
The problem:
- Igla uses Bang-Bang to control fins → G-overload is lower due to this
- Stinger and Mistral do not use Bang-Bang to control their fins → They do not have the same G-overload issues as Igla
- Stinger and Mistral have similar fin shapes to Igla → This does not matter because the Stinger and Mistral use a different method of control of the fins than the Igla
9 Likes
Most idiotic reasoning I have ever seen stop “assuming” things that are obviously wrong
5 Likes
I do not see it. Mistral, Stinger and Igla use approximately the same values in the “guidanceAutopilot” section. The fact that the first two use PID, and the last one does not, is your imagination.
No REAL sources on PID control for Stinger and Mistral.
I’m saying that you don’t even need sources because Gaijin hasn’t given them Bang-Bang control for the fins.
The G-overload of the Iglas is low because of Bang-Bang, so if Gaijin hasn’t implemented Bang-Bang onto the Stinger or Mistral they should not have the limits the Iglas has.
16 Likes
Moving the goal posts are we ? Developers never had any problem adding missiles following their best known performances, wether they knew the missiles in question used PID or not.
Basically, we know from multiple sources the mistral and stinger are underperforming. In a normal situation, those sources would have been enough, but for some strange reason, gaijin decided to go the “big fat guess” road this time.
Now for your original question :
from https://www.3af.fr/global/gene/link.php?doc_id=4089&fg=1 (René Carpentier, chief of design team for mistral missile)
“avec la numérisation et la microélectronique, les missiles Mistral et Mica, de faibles dimensions et très sophistiqués, purent être réalisés”. Which you could translate to :
“with [the democratization of] numerisation and micro-electronics, Mica and Mistral missiles, of small dimensions and very sophisticated, could be realized”.
It implies mistral is using a computer, to make it short. And you can bet there’s a PID algorithm running into that computer.
Now i see you coming : “it’s just a guess”. Well yes, you may be correct, but so was the article posted above by gaijin.
What we know however, is that the missiles in question are underperforming :
“grande manœuvrabilité (25G) permettant d’être efficace contre des cibles se dérobant” translated to : “great maneuverability (25G) allowing the missile to be effective against evading targets”
The wording is important here : 25G allow the missile to be effective against evading targets, which literally means the missile can perform such an overload at its peak energy state. Also, it states “maneuvrability” not “overload”
Now onto a primary source :
“high manoevrability : up to 30G”. The document states “manoevrability” not “overload” once again, which means there isn’t even room for any “average overload” vs “peak overload” misunderstanding.
So to sum it up
- We have multiple primary and secondary sources proving those missiles are underperforming by a large margin, which according to gaijin rules should have been accepted without even a second thought about it
- Gaijin decides to go “it’s guess time” instead
- we provide a plausible explanation as to why the missile perform differently despite being physically similar compared to igla
- and now we would have to prove those missiles use a PID to counter… a guess ? While multiple first hand sources contradict that guess, with absolute 0 room for any misunderstanding on what those primary sources are stating ?
That sounds far-fetched, to say the least
30 Likes
Yet it has Ks, and Ks have datalink
Hmmm, my initial post was censored where I want Mistrals & Stingers to be accurate…
5 Likes
Just happened to 4-5 of my posts today, theres more botting going around. Bot brigading of anything not pro current state of the game
3 Likes
Good to know that no matter how often you change your name, your tactics of changing your argument to fit the current popular opinion still happens Razor Von.
16 Likes
I’ve never changed my position around manpads; I still think they should be as accurate as possible.
You shouldn’t be making statements that imply wanting Stingers to be accurate is unpopular, or that I now oppose them when it’s obvious I don’t.