Let’s say I understand this position, but no one has provided data on the exact average overload.
If you look, the Stinger shoots down about the same target as the igla according to the documentation. So why should it have 2+ times the overload?
yeah, the answer’s wrong. It’s just not worded correctly
why would you interpret the iglas document that way? its the same thing. both documents lack a stated max. so why would the igla get the 10.2G stated but the stinger is not getting its 22G stated.
its a double standard.
How do you know that
1 Like
listing an average is, as I pointed out earlier, as useful to the player as knowing the average velocity of a projectile. When the rest of the parameters are hidden, it’s not very useful - these are not intuitive facts of the world that players can easily feel, and they’re not even easy to measure from the game itself for the average player.
For another statcard listed parameter in game that’s technically correct is a plane’s turning time. While it may be accurate that it takes 30.7 seconds for an Me 410 A-1 to complete a full turn without losing speed or altitude, it is not a practical value you can compare with other planes because their energy generation, drag etc are also different. There is no single value that one could use in its place that’d cover the “average combat encounter” of course, but players probably care more about the maximum turn rate (with energy loss) in the short term. For example long ago, when flightmodels were much more messed up than they are now, a G series Stuka could outturn ANYTHING in the game in the short term (in air arcade) while the sustained turn rate was much much worse. It was not clear from the listed sustained turn rate at the time that this was the case but you could challenge Zeroes at will for 2-3 full turns.
If devs wanted to make it easier to understand how missiles work, they would need to improve data presentation. For example, make an adjustable graph that shows the engagement zone of the missile depending on target velocity, such as the Igla graph you’ve displayed already. It should at a minimum have adjustable target velocity and path in 2 dimensions relative to the launching platform, preferably more complex paths than straight line as well as different launch platform velocity, etc.
Until then I’d prefer to know the maximum rather than a supposed “average” that’s based on a percentage the average player didn’t ever read, especially 3 years down the road when there have been many more controversies and the memories of this one have faded (this formula blog will not ever be displayed in game, which is where most players gather 100% of the information they have on this game).
kts = knots. 600kts = 1111 km/h = 308m/s. Incidentally pretty much the exact value the target has on that Igla graph in this thread.
As I understand it, it’s knots. 600 knots = 1100kph.
A stinger will shoot down a 1100kph target flying at 7g.
Now look at the Igla chart - target 310 meters per second (1116 kph) and 8g overload.
According to the description, the Igla shoots down a more difficult target.
According to the report, to shoot down the target, it must have 2-3 times the maximum overload.
Please explain how an Igla with a supposedly maximum overload of 10.2g knocks down a target better than a stinger
Now you have two official answers that contradict each other. Which one is correct?
The later one given by the developers and not by a bugreporter who is less competent
So wouldn’t it then be much better to show Igla as having 8G overload rather than 10.2, if it’s limit is hitting a 8G maneuvering target? For simplicity of understanding for the average player.
Displaying a 63%-something value is not helpful to the player.
But since these missiles will often be used on targets that aren’t maneuvering but the missile still needs to change path, perhaps displaying a turning radius would be better.
The target is flying with a speed of 600 knots (about 1100km/h) and is turning with 7G-force. that is the targets G-force, not the missile.
lateral acceleration = turning G-force. not maximum G-force.
could you translate those words in the graph please?
No, 8g is target overload, not missile overload. The missile should have 2-3 times more
The dev blog itself clearly states available overload
What is “Available” to me, that means max. This is the issue, they are applying the average as the max. So over the course of the 17s flight time, it pulls only 13G. It should peak at 20-22G and then fall off to 13G by second 17.
The dev post should have said something like.
FIM-92 Stinger, ATAS(AIM-92) — Max Available overload has been increased from 10G to 20G. Average G of the missile will be increased to 13G.
1 Like
From above, the target parameters are 310 meters per second and an overload of 8g.
Then there are two curved lines, one labeled “kill zone” and the other “launch zone”
Maybe so, but agree, the problem here is understanding, not Russian bias, which a bunch of morons who couldn’t think with their heads accused them of here
The game’s interface and its informative is not great and I don’t know why they don’t write a max, but it won’t change the behavior of the rocket.
Their formula confirms that while the available stinger overload is 13g, the maximum is 22. They gave us what they asked for.
I just find it weird how the Stinger’s tracking is laughable, sometimes they overshoot or undershoot SLOW turning planes, shots that look to be easy kills, yet the missile just overshoots
you did the thing, it says on the document it’s secret… you just did the thing
So do you agree with me that it’s not helpful to display a 10.2G value because
- 10.2G is not the targets maneuver limit the missile can hit
- 10.2G is not the missiles maximum overload with which it can attempt to hit a non-maneuvering target
- 10.2G is based on an percentage value that the average player will not know, and it is difficult math to calculate.
- The speed of a missile affects their turn radius even if otherwise at same G as another different speed missile.
And all the above is completely setting aside that despite missiles looking missile shaped, they don’t perform identically.
Relax, it’s an old document, it’s no longer classified, it’s been used 100 times.
1 Like
No, there is definetly still an issue here. They have said time and time again, that the use of soviet sources to model NATO items can’t be done and vice versa.
They used a soviet missile data. Stated that “there is no way NATO can make anything better than the soviets” and used its data to change the data for a NATO missile.
They just assumed that all these missiles are basically identical, even though they use different tracking methods, likely made out of different materials and not too mention the west is routinely more advanced with these kinds of things. They even admitted that they have data stating that the max should be higher
and yet they still leave it lower. for no reason at all other than that it would leave the Soviets at a disadvantage.
5 Likes