similar while 1 has 8 time the amount of battle and thus experience with the vehicle… So no, they aren’t similar, not even close.
A very good explanation of Bang-Bang and PID
1 Like
Although I agree with your statement, I am simply worried that this will set a bad precedence that will bleed into other equipment eventually, if not already. I am confident Gaijin knows exactly what game they are playing with the community at large, and to them, it probably does not sound stupid at all.
In my opinion though, and the reason I even bothered to post at all, is that Gaijin has more or less admitted to ignoring sources if it suits their needs, meaning if true, there is no reason to ever submit source reports anymore unless it is for Russia, and only if it positively impacts their general characteristics and gameplay. Basically, asking for “bug reports” from the community has always been a charade just to trick players into thinking their opinions are being heard and accepted, when in reality it is being cherry-picked and the rest are burned in a fire pit or forever marked for obscurity.
4 Likes
How long are the mistrals and stingers at their top speed?
Not exactly, they are using the Peak G numbers they mentioned from the open sources for the Stinger and Mistral. What happened is that they didn’t have the Average/Available G numbers for the Stinger and Mistral so they practically made a simple ratio with the numbers from a very similar missile they do have the Available/Average G and Peak G values for, the 9M39 Igla.
except the 22G and 25G values for stinger and mistrals aren’t peak maneuvering.
- Firstly, the PID and Bang Bang are very different, with the PID being more precise in the way it steers the control surfaces, BeautifulTai_wan made a pretty clear explanation on that matter
- On 2, a 16G missile going mach 2.5 is unable to hit a plane maneuvering at 8g, so MBDA selling this capability means : A - they are lying, B - Gaijin don’t understand the way the missile works, you can bet which one is correct
- On 3, MBDA, then again, wouldn’t publish a selling brochure stating 25G if the missile was incapable of that. A customer doesn’t care how the missile works technically, so stating a hypothetical “peak maneuvering” doesn’t make any sense in that context, since only the “average maneuvering” matters.
- On 4, they still didn’t adress the seeker problems, with helicopter being able to come as close as 2km without being locked for some helicopters, while documentation states 4km minimum range against them
- On 5, this :
shows that you (and i don’t mean to be rude) didn’t understand the problem, since nobody is denying the fact that a slow missile won’t pull its maximum overload.
The matter at hand here is the way control surfaces are steered while the airframe of the missile is rolling.
BTW i’m less familiar with stinger, but it also applies on said missile, since they work similarly
9 Likes
I don’t know the exact number, but it’s likely not for very long relative to its guidance time at least.
We have to consider how long it takes them to accelerate and how long the rocket motor with its remaining fuel from accelerating keeps the missile at its top speed.
I feel like you are missing the issue of this thread. People are upset because they are guessing despite the evidence in front of them because the fins “look similar” to another system. It is completely disrespectful to people who scour and submit reports only to have them tossed due to “we feel” and “we guess”.
11 Likes
It seems like that would be something you would want to know, as a lot of the time the average is irrelevant when you only need a few seconds of high G performance.
Well, to be fair they were forced to make an educated guess due to a lack of information, and this is probably as close as they can get with the information they have.
For calculation purposes, the average is a more accurate representation of overall performance, because it is… an average. Modeling the missile’s performance as a whole, based on a minuscule timeframe is probably not a good idea.
What lack of information??
They obviously have enough information to know the correct G-loads instead of guessing and “assuming” based on completely different missile.
Or using soviet/russian source they literally said a week ago they wouldn’t accept anymore…
3 Likes
Rip roland 1/2s
1 Like
So youre saying the missile shouldnt get the Gs purported by the sources because the missile averages less Gs because it runs out of thrust and would lose its higher G ability? First, the loss of acceleration would account for higher G-forces as after the missile runs out of thrust a plane can just accelerate in another direction and the maneuverability wouldnt be able to help it. Second, if the plane doesnt change its vector then the higher Gs arent even necessary. I dont see how average is supposed to be more accurate here when most of the missiles engagements are within a few kilometers where the missile is at the higher speeds. Few missile kills actually occur in the game outside of that window.
In other words, the decrease in speed and acceleration of the missile should account for the lower G tolerance of the missiles at lower speeds. Thus the average is less accurate as it only serves to diminish its ability where it is supposed to be the most effective.
That’s the perfect way to get blacklisted from all militaries interested in your products.
From these last few devblogs it’s 100% clear they haven’t researched barely anything.
1 Like
While i appreciate the fact that the devs are trying to understand what they are trying to manipulate, 7 (and i’m not kidding) sources stating the same 25G load should be enough.
If they can’t comprehend why something works or doesn’t work, then they should just accept the sources as they come, assuming they are reliable enough (which is the case here).
Doing this is suicidal. Lying in your advertisement never brings good reputation in the long run.
15 rotation per second isn’t exactly what i would call “very slowly”
“Better in equal proportions” ?
Mistrals and stingers don’t need to be “in equal proportion” to igla. They need to be as close as what open sources say, at least if gaijin want to respect their “historical accuracy” selling point. The matter of balance should be handled by BR and BR only
9 Likes
Yeah 800-1500rpm is “very slowly” lmao…
2 Likes
Unless if you’re Russia, that’s how they end up will all these unstoppable wonder weapons that look great on paper until they’re put to the test and turns out it’s not remotely as good as claimed because it was all just posturing, people lining their pockets, corruption and trying to appear tough rather than being tough and then you get rolled by a neighbor country you thought you could conquer in a matter of days, but who cares because people already made their money.
Oh, and of course they look good in War thunder as well since they blindly copy that propaganda as it suits them.
1 Like
Just… no…
Even looking at the damn Igla manual they used to nerf all MANPADs back in the day, you can see the peak overload is 10.2G:
They’re just being jerks and not using their own made-up “averaging” formula for Igla, cause then it would make Igla perform ahistorically… the irony of which seems to be lost on them…
20 Likes
How igla suddenly got 6 extra Gs?
You indeed are missing something huge.
Also you are assuming and guessing awfully lot.
1 Like