We don’t know, thats the point. They are using IGLA data to state otherwise. Its a bit like me using Sidewinder data to model the max G of the R-73. It makes no sense.
At this current moment in time, we lack the actual data to state either way. We do have 1 report that indicates that “might” be the case. with a document that states “maneuverability (g) 22”. One way to interpret that, is that hte missile can pull 22G for its entire flight time. It does not state max or average anywhere.
Unless you can provide data stating otherwise. Using IGLA data to prove the Stinger is the same, is just wrong and shouldnt have been done. They could have stated that in the absense of data, they are assuming a G drop off. The community would have likely accpeted that. They did not. They used soviet data.
Like I said above:
This closely matches the data we have for now, but if and most likely, when, more data becomes available, they need to action it. Not ignroe it
wow you are stupid, the R-73 has a speed of up to 2.5M , the stinger has 670m/s. Slower speeds of course are easier to manover, dont you understand the basics of sth like that? G limits are affected by speed and size of the object as well
You don’t seem to understand the problem. They are trying to simulate the Bang Bang guidance by applying the .6777 factor to the available G-load. Now by applying the same factor to completely different missiles they’re simply modelling them wrong. Your argument makes no sense since a different guidance method would simply require a different factor to modify the G-load with (or none if the given G-loads from sources are already applicable given how the game models missiles). This is very much within the scope of the article since the article is trying to say the missiles all work the same when they apparently actually don’t.
We have 2 sources. 1 States 22G “maneuvability” the other states “lateral acceleration” of 20G. Neither state max, neither state average. Those are the figures we have available at this current moment in time.
This “might” be the average, this “might” be the max. We don’t know. At minimum this should be the max. Currently the max is 13G and in the absense of more data, using this data as a max is reasonable, for now. But if any additional data becomes available that indicates this is the average… Then it should be changed to the average. But even still. Using IGLA data “because they are similar” (even though they arent, entirely different guidance methods) to calculate that average, is kinda insane.
Can they though? Stat cards state “max is 13G”, Bug report states “max is 13G”, Dev blog states “max is 13G”.
3 “official” gaijin sources state the max is 13G. Unless someone can datamine the missile and confirm 20-22G is the max and the stat card and their statements are wrong. The assumption must be that the max = average and therefore the max is wrong. Thus the uproar in this post. If its a communication error. Then its a bad one. and the fact they havent corrected it yet, tells me that its possible its not a mistake
no they cannot, they havent modelled that kind of thing, also the average pull of the stinger being 13 g is COMPLETELY wrong and Based on bad math as pointed out by one of the players further up the thread
literaly never saw someone say review bomb here, besides that it is the comulation of the fuck up of all recent bad decisions of gajin about handling armor, stingers literaly only wanting to give spall liner to T-90M at the start and etc
And fact is you never provided any source or reason why the stingers and mistrals shouldnt be able to reach 20g average, iglas are different missles and cant be used for comparisons easy as that, the stingers should be modeled after the available data
You don’t seem to understand the problem either. Gaijin are using a single factor to approximate the real guidance parameters, people above have posted graphs, arguments and calculations that show why and how Gaijin’s factor cannot be applied to all missiles. If you are unable to understand these, I’m afraid I cannot help you.
