yes, however the developer tried to explain that he felt it was a more useful parameter.
All the accusations are wrong. You can only scold for the strange idea of specifying just available overload, but not for “bias”
Is the Mistral worse than the Igla? They have higher performance, and significantly so.
The developer was talking about how he tried to show the same parameter in missiles.
Can you imagine if one vehicle was advertised with maximum speed and the other with average speed? What would you get from that comparison
I don’t think it’s bias, it looks like lazy development. They should’ve said it was the way it was for balancing purposes. But to write a devblog using “I guess” as a primary source is ridiculous. The Stinger has proved itself as an formidable area denial weapon against low flying and slow targets, yet in game they can miss a su 25 turning at 500kph.
There was a datamine posted here where Western missile guidance is better.
They have yet to state that the “max” is 20-22. They have only stated that the average is 13G with wording that implies the max is also 13G. They need to officially confirm, in no uncertain terms. That the max IS 20-22G, at the moment, the assumption and evidence states 13G
4 Likes
Yep, all of my misses using the ATAS have been I reckon from a lack of initial max G to get the missile onto target, not too mention the tracking is crap and they loose contact easily. Both could be explained by a lack of G to stay on target. We have a source stating that it can hit a target pulling 7G and to do that, you ideally need to pull around 2.5/3x that number. Which is about 20-22G
Flame puts it best
Lateral acceleration is how many g the missile can pull in a turn (axial acceleration is how quickly it accelerates to speed). The math also checks out because as a general rule a missile needs to be able to pull approximately 2.5x - 3x whatever the target is pulling in order to be able to hit. So to hit a 7g manoeuvring target the Stinger would need to pull around 18-21g, which lines up with the 20g stated in the first document.
It may well be realistic. For example, compare VT1 and an Adats missile. Adatsa gets a fraction of a second’s speed and his missile is the best up to 4-5km in terms of controllability in the game.
And VT-1 takes longer to gain speed and reaches a better G only by 5-7 kilometers.
However, the Igla source states target 8g, which means 22-24g
I’m just saying, you guys are a little crazy. I’ve read so many accusations against the developer here from people who don’t even know 10% of it.
Only a few people here with me have come to an understanding of the problem
That formula its wrong if you use it on mistrals and stingers because they are rolling missiles and this formula is used to calculate the average on non-rolling missiles. Simple.
1 Like
All we can know for sure. Is that we have 2 sources that indicate 20-22G, Neither state max.
There are 2 possiblities
-
This is the max, and they need to state clearly and model the missile accordingly. With an initially peak G of 20-22G, before dropping off to an overall average of 13 (though they need to make damn sure that soviet sources are accurate for use on a NATO missile)
-
this is the average pull of the missile and the peak is much higher. In which case the missile is horribly wrong.
We’ll need more data and sources to confirm either way, but one thing is for certain. This dev post has only highlighted major issues with how they model things. They cannot be using soviet data, stating that “NATO can’t make anything better than the soviets” and then model based upon that. At which point, this is no longer a “realisitc” game, its an entirely fictional one and the game is dead
1 Like
How is it not true if by using it from an average of 13 we get exactly the same maximum 22 as stated in the manual?
They literally made stinger and mistral better than Igla. Why would you say that?
Because youre using the 13 the devs gave us using the same formula on the first place. Thats just stupid
its only better in stated higher G-load.
people are saying stinger(and others) should also be higher than 63% of peak since they use different methods of control than igla so they cant be compared and used to do those calculations.
this is a really good description of the differences in control:
Edit:
they used the same 63% as the igla. that is where people want improvement. its only better because of g-load. not as people also want, better construction and programming.
2 Likes
But possibly only slightly so, even though it could be twice as good. They may have massively nerfed the missile based upon that assumption. The fact it took the better part of a year (not too mention how many reprots got ignored before then) to get the missile increased from the exact same as the IGLA (both 10G) to a minor increase for the stinger.
Okay, people have cited their formula, which is better than this one?
How much better? 1%? 1000%?
Based on the data on targets hit, the Stinger is worse than the Igla.
I’m surprised that despite this fact the Stinger has higher parameters.
How do you explain the Igla’s higher target overload if you think it is “twice as bad”?
You should quit pretending this is you guys versus whiny NATO mains. Despite having little technical knowledge for this, I know it is ridiculous to use such a superficial comparision as a way to determine characteristics between different missiles. Those who know better have already commented and shown their reasoning on why this is ridiculous.
However, they did not provide formulas. “I think this is 1,000 times better.” Okay, that sounds “realistic.”