Multiple versions of Air-to-Air Stinger exist as well;
ATAS based on the Stinger B/C, the basic Stinger essentially (and the in game version)
ATAS-I based on the Stinger E, improved flight control software and general flight performance as well as enhanced performance against light targets such as drones, cruise missiles and light helis (so essentially longer range)
ATAS-II which is a complete upgrade improving tracking and target distinction capabilities, improved IRCCM and accuracy, new battery, etc. (essentially also longer range and also better IRCCM)
(all taken from Wikipedia)
However, the Igla only has one version for air-to-air mounting, the Igla-V. As far as I know, there hasn’t been additional ones, and at least according to Russian Wikipedia the only change has been the ability to mount two at once.
partly, the progressive pull they are modeling is based on the bang-bang method. the progression is then very short and contributes very little to the turning compared to a PID method since in PID the blades starts doing their movement earlier and contributing to the pull for a longer period of time. this not only makes the turn smoother but also makes the average pull higher even if the peak G’s are the same.
infrared imaging seeker would be extremely flare resistant and that additional range allows it to chase after jets that are trying to run away at excess of mach 1.
We should just ignore that guy, he is a pro russian troll that spreads misinformation and constantly switches sides in arguments in attempts to make people look bad. He will also pretend to be on the side of people to try to turn them against you. I cant believe he is not banned yet.
that is some really unbelievable level of mental gymnastics …
is this what WT is going to be from now on? Is the “we believe” now the be-all and end-all meterstick for Gaijin, good enough for completely ignoring technical data? Throwing sources away, cherry-pick few scraps of data and then filter those through ridiculous amount of nonsense, guesstimates and wishful thinking in order to hammer it into predetermined parameters?
remember this?
pretty sad that 2023 version is pretty much “it’s easier to lie and make stuff up” …
No amount of words can describe the amount of mental gymnastics you guys are pulling in order to excuse buffing anything NATO, simply because “SoViEt EqUiPmEnT cAn’t Do It, ThErEfOrE nAtO eQuIpMeNt CaN’T dO iT eItHeR”, it’s hilarious. I guess we, as a community, know what has to be done, again.
Don’t forget constantly editing his comments to mean completely different things than originally and deleting everything that makes him look bad.
I.e insults, just bad/wrong takes, lies etc…
How much of this game has weapons and vehicles based on only basic russian systems and data? We could have numerous systems nerfed because a similar system can’t do the same. You can’t base all Manpads on The russian IGLA!!! When I said they had double standards this entire conversation proves it.
We don’t care to model the FCS on the PUMA that programs its AHEAD rounds, but we will give the 2S38 HE-VT even though both vehicles use very similar systems to program their respective Anti-Air/Air-Burst rounds (Barrel induction for the PUMA vs laser programming for the 2S38).
The favoritism is very clear and with every blogpost they make, they dig a deeper grave for themselves.
They also do the opposite when it benefits Russia. I think all Soviet tanks are modeled using NATO numbers, which results in them having far more armour than they should have and shells are all modeled using the same method, so L27A1 and DM53 are both likely underperforming.
But yeah, I imagine quite a lot is modeled wrong because they are using one method for all nations, even if nations use radically different methods (ERA on the CR2 for example is not ERA like you have on the BVM, it has multiple layers, including a composite layer)
