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
33 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.
17 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.
Case in point, thank you for really highlighting what I meant.
Nuh uh, you obviously support this ridiculous strawman argument I made up if you call out my BS
2 Likes
Weird since I didn’t claim you stated anything that isn’t something you didn’t state.
yes you did
3 Likes
Again, I’m not stating he stated anything he didn’t.
He claimed I changed my position from supporting Stinger to something else.
Either in the past or present.
And since I’ve exclusively supported accurate Stingers & Mistrals since before War Thunder existed, he’s making a statement that implies/can be inferred in a manner that is toxic to this discussion.
Thats not what you originally said:
You claimed that you didn’t claim that he stated ANYTHING
and that is what this implies.
you just changed it from “I didn’t claim you stated anything” to “I’m not stating he stated anything he didn’t”.
this also sadly proves his point about you changing your argument (maybe not specifically on popular opinions, but still).
2 Likes
It doesn’t though since I never changed my arguments.
you changed from “anything” to “anything he didn’t”. that is a change. and it changes the meaning of your claim to such a degree that it goes from not true to being true.
how do you see that as not a change?
4 Likes
I was in-match and felt the pressure of typing fast.
The meaning didn’t change, I just finished the statement.
I apologize for rushing it to begin with.