I’m saying that you don’t even need sources because Gaijin hasn’t given them Bang-Bang control for the fins.
The G-overload of the Iglas is low because of Bang-Bang, so if Gaijin hasn’t implemented Bang-Bang onto the Stinger or Mistral they should not have the limits the Iglas has.
Moving the goal posts are we ? Developers never had any problem adding missiles following their best known performances, wether they knew the missiles in question used PID or not.
Basically, we know from multiple sources the mistral and stinger are underperforming. In a normal situation, those sources would have been enough, but for some strange reason, gaijin decided to go the “big fat guess” road this time.
Now for your original question :
“avec la numérisation et la microélectronique, les missiles Mistral et Mica, de faibles dimensions et très sophistiqués, purent être réalisés”. Which you could translate to :
“with [the democratization of] numerisation and micro-electronics, Mica and Mistral missiles, of small dimensions and very sophisticated, could be realized”.
It implies mistral is using a computer, to make it short. And you can bet there’s a PID algorithm running into that computer.
Now i see you coming : “it’s just a guess”. Well yes, you may be correct, but so was the article posted above by gaijin.
What we know however, is that the missiles in question are underperforming :
The wording is important here : 25G allow the missile to be effective against evading targets, which literally means the missile can perform such an overload at its peak energy state. Also, it states “maneuvrability” not “overload”
Now onto a primary source :
So to sum it up
That sounds far-fetched, to say the least
Yet it has Ks, and Ks have datalink
Hmmm, my initial post was censored where I want Mistrals & Stingers to be accurate…
Just happened to 4-5 of my posts today, theres more botting going around. Bot brigading of anything not pro current state of the game
Good to know that no matter how often you change your name, your tactics of changing your argument to fit the current popular opinion still happens Razor Von.
I’ve never changed my position around manpads; I still think they should be as accurate as possible.
You shouldn’t be making statements that imply wanting Stingers to be accurate is unpopular, or that I now oppose them when it’s obvious I don’t.
Case in point, thank you for really highlighting what I meant.
Nuh uh, you obviously support this ridiculous strawman argument I made up if you call out my BS
Weird since I didn’t claim you stated anything that isn’t something you didn’t state.
yes you did
Again, I’m not stating he stated anything he didn’t.
He claimed I changed my position from supporting Stinger to something else.
Either in the past or present.
And since I’ve exclusively supported accurate Stingers & Mistrals since before War Thunder existed, he’s making a statement that implies/can be inferred in a manner that is toxic to this discussion.
Thats not what you originally said:
You claimed that you didn’t claim that he stated ANYTHING
and that is what this implies.
you just changed it from “I didn’t claim you stated anything” to “I’m not stating he stated anything he didn’t”.
this also sadly proves his point about you changing your argument (maybe not specifically on popular opinions, but still).
It doesn’t though since I never changed my arguments.
you changed from “anything” to “anything he didn’t”. that is a change. and it changes the meaning of your claim to such a degree that it goes from not true to being true.
how do you see that as not a change?
I was in-match and felt the pressure of typing fast.
The meaning didn’t change, I just finished the statement.
I apologize for rushing it to begin with.
the meaning did change.
your intent might not have, but the meaning of the actually semantically correct interpreted sentences did change.
its like saying
“i didn’t do anything”
or
“i didn’t do anything to that wall”
means the same when they don’t.
Stuff like this is why people argue so much with you, very often you mean one thing but type another, and then when people get irritated you say the thing you actually ment.
This looks from outside like you changed your view and then claim you has the same the whole time (which you probably did, but it does not look like that).
people will read and understand sentences as you write them, not as you intend/mean.
We all know you got “censored” for being annoying, twisting our words and straight up lying.
Doesn’t matter how much you backtrack and edit your comments, we will still know why you got originally flagged.
Apparently supporting accurate Stingers & Mistrals is the wrong position & gets you slandered defamed and generally attacked by people that claim to support the same thing.
I’ll still support the same things I always have without changing cause I only come to these conclusions after extensive research.
This devblog was the reason I decided not to buy the US Greek Apache premium in the sale.
Russian source says 10g Igla? That of course is average g.
Western source say max g? That of course means the absolute maximum instantaneous g, and the average g is much less. Oh and by the way we are modelling your MANPADS like our Igla, because the details of yours are still classified.
The performance at taking down a manoeuvring target is described for western MANPADS as much better than the Iglas, but in WT they perform worse.
And people said Russian bias doesn’t exist heh
