From the same document it show 4 fins. I guess I am not seeing what you are talking about
1 Like
Does that have any significant impact on the performances compared to the mistral design ?
Sorry This forum layout keeps beating me up
You referencing a 1983 Document -https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA130027.pdf
While also referencing partial 2006 document explaining the in some detail the upgrades made over the years. - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA454087.pdf
Just saying we are not using 1983 tech in what they claim is the FIM-92E or K models. Though an argument is being made that they need to change the K in-game to a J model as the K improvements include Data-Link capabilities
1 Like
I meant that, as according to the 2006 document, that 2 sets of fins (the ones that can move) are deployed earlier, and 2 fixed ones deploy later in flight. The pic of the launch shows that is plausible as only two fins are visibly deployed. I know there are 4 fins in total, but only 2 of them move apparently.
Sure, fair to say these are older sources. But I think the 20G source is also an equally old one. I believe it mentioned the basic Stinger even (FIM-92A), which shows that even with 1 set of maneuvering fins it can do 20G.
Anyways, for all we know, we know nothing about the newer variants. And I sadly can’t find anything about them either, no official documentation or study or whatever. It doesn’t look to me either that much has changed other than the seeker and some guidance logic. Cramming 4 servos in such a small missile seems unlikely, but of course not impossible in this day and age. But I don’t read improved maneuverability anywhere either. I would also really like to get the datalink for the K, but I have no concrete evidence for it either. So best sources are on the older versions really…
One thing that Gaijin could work on is actually implementing the UV seeker part of the Stinger. Whatever Gaijin says, they don’t have it actually modelled. At least there is enough evidence for it.
Yeah, Ty90 is nothing like manapds, its just a really small conventional air to air with your standard control fins. It functions the same as sidewinders r73 etc and does not roll.
tbf R73 is yet on another class, as it is thrust vectoring. Also, TY90 only has 4 control fins in the front. Is it the same for the rest of the AAMs in the game ? If not, then the calculations made by the devs (from my understanding) should still apply, as it would still be closely related to the mistral in dimension and fin size (although by having larger servo it could potentially pull harder on the fins)
What i mean is, its not derived from rolling body manpads and is instead a fully fledged air to air missile. It has 4 moveable control fins which are larger proportional to the size of the missile than mistral
2 Likes
When people realise the centurion could load a round every 2 seconds with video evidence. There is far too much evidence for the Abram’s reload to be 4 seconds for it to be factually based lmao. We all know it’s “balanced” based and they don’t give a shit about what’s realistic.
1 Like
Okay thanks. I had read somewhere above that the TY90 had smaller fins than the mistral, and that because, from my belief that they were similarly sized, the fins of the ty90 and mistral were also similarly sized compared to their size. thanks for the clarification
But, and in defence of gaijing for that one, not only for balance reason, but a human reload will always depend on many factors. From the loader experience, to his exhaustion, to if the tank is moving, even how hot/uncomfortable it is in the turret…
If we started allowing for these kind of reloads, then we’d go down a rabbit hole of potential mechanics to model how reloads might get slower and slower the more you shot/the battle last, and I don’t think that would be interesting gameplay wise
Igla uses bang-bang but they still use its performance as the “”'“evidence”“” to gimp NATO MANPADS
Absolutely incredible.
2 Likes
Wait till they hear about the rim 116 rolling body missile
Meanwhile in an alternate universe, Gaijin the US game maker writes the same dev blog about how R-73 can’t possibly achieve HOBS shots since the 9M can’t do it
4 Likes
Their manpads are Mistrals.
I remember back in 2019 when all manpads pulled 18g. igla was pretty much ty90 except the planes you shot at were subsonic korean war jets with no flares to speak of lol. Not ashamed to admit id sit at the back of map with mi28n x8 igla and wipe out other teams cas effort
I’m far from asking we should have 3 second reload for the centurion. But them explaining how they nerf the manpads because of their “experts” decision is just bullshit. It’s purely due to their warped view of balance that they try and shelve. I say they just balance things through the br of the vehicle and not their biased as shit view as from all the evidence we have it shouldn’t be biased of what gaijin wants as they are very biased. Don’t take me Too seriously as I am quite waisted and so my spelling and reasoning are out the window.
1 Like
So 63% of this max available overload is 6.4. You’re saying that the 9M39 should have only 6.4 G of pull in game based on the math and then why is that not reflected in game?
6 Likes
lol i dont think thats what they are saying
NW. I just think the reload arguments are not similar to the MANPADs situation. Loading is very much human dependent, and they said they considered it for balancing (heck, even half of the French autoloaders at 6s should actually be 4s).
If you want to make another comparaison, most armor for NATO tanks (including the M1 lol) would fall in this category. Gaijing usually models armor correctly and then balance the br accordingly (or so they want us to think), so not implementing well written reports because “much but transmission” is pretty scummy.