Unfortunately for British players, Gaijin will not read that far into it.
2 Likes
a missile the Meteor is based on and probably one of the only existing sources on it
True, but Meteor is non-the-less different.
But that’s irrelevant anyway, because as I showed in the rest of my reply (which you ignored) Mach 0.9 is not even the minimum launch speed for A3M
3 Likes
from this the delta v can be calculated for the booster, which would give you the minimum lauch speed
which you will still have regardless, due to it being a ramjet
If you want some rough maths:
The booster accelerates the missile from Mach 0.9 to Mach 2.3, meaning it accelerates it by 1.4 Mach.
So even if the missile was fired from stationary you can expect the booster to accelerate it to about Mach 1.4, which is fast enough for your typical ramjet to operate. So that would suggest the minimum launch speed of A3M / Meteor is not going to be a problem in game, as even from stationary the booster will get it fast enough for the ramjet to take over (obviously a faster launch speed is better, but that goes for all missiles).
3 Likes
that is not deltaV thats napkin math that totally ignores that there is less drag at 3000m than at sea level
that is also ignoring how drag in the transsonic region wastly increases compared to sub sonic and supersonic drag
it most importantly ignores that the missiles was launched at almost supersonic speeds
ehhhh, I doubt those limitations will be modeled (min launch speed)
Also, don’t forget that Meteor missile will be backed up by bugreporters from France, UK, Sweden and Germany and will be probably get the most attention of any missile in the game. There is still yet to be any report on the PL-12* and same for R-77 and relatively little for R-77-1.
1 Like
You’re welcome to do your own maths if you want to make a point, but just complaining about my maths (which by my own admission was a very rough estimate) isn’t going to achieve anything.
I will warn you that there is not enough information in that source of yours to calculate delta-v (hence I didn’t), but if you want to waste your time trying then be my guest.
1 Like
well yes ofcourse becasue it isnt in the game jet
ppl tried but gaijin handwaved them away with “engine limitations”
I corrected it to PL-12 a little bit before you posted it.
What historical report was ever put in for the R-77 using actual sources and then Gaijin said “engine limitations”?
1 Like
iirc every report about proper grid fin drag profiles implementation
1 Like
Link?
the drag of the gridfins, gaijin basically uses transonic drag for the gridfins even tho it is significatly lower at sub sonic and supersonic speeds
they said they cant model variable drag depending on speed of the missile, i can try finding the report
@Smin1080p_WT
is there any plans for naval kill system its attrocious i can knock out 70% of someones crew on paris for example and someone hits one ammo rack on him after i did that and they get the kill and i get a assist its horrible if you dont have big guns for Br range severe damage seems a amazing feature to solve this problem
@DirectSupport this is not the report/ statment i was talking about, but it still highlights the issue
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/O8ssXMyAU5l7
iam gonna dig for the dev reply in the meantime
1 Like
Please do because I like to think that I camp the community bug-report site and I do not recall seeing it.
A question was posed to Stepanovich whether R-77 would get its gridfin drag modeling and all he replied back was that all you can do is report time-to-target/range, and that’s about it. He didn’t deny implementing grid-fins.
No worries, take your time.
it might be possible that i took the engine limitation thing as a truth becasue multiple ppl were saying it, but i will ping you whenever i find a statment or something of the sorts
1 Like
AiM-9X too and Maybe ASRAAM after this update
If the main issue is the seeker balance, then CAMM wont help as its an ARH seeker. but Aim-9X yeah, forgot that was in game too, as is Python-5 right?