I mean, yeah… thats why I said if the value in the code is represented in meters, its erroneous…?
So basically Michael and Adder reign supreme, maybe June turns the table around (cope)
1 Like
It isnt in meters its an abittary number with no value afaik, as most missile have it set to like 0.125-0.175, they just fumble with the valued until they get the results they want
1 Like
Thats the other possibility, but regardless of what the number represents exactly, they seem to be a little all over the place with it.
For example (missile length / distFromCmToStab value):
AIM-120 variants: 3.66m / 0.175
R-77: 3.6m / 0.175
R-77-1: 3.71m / 0.175
MICA: 3.1m / 0.175
PL-12 variants: 3.93m / 0.12
AAM-4: 3.667m / 0.25
Imo, a valid assumption would be that a longer missile should usually have a larger distFromCmToStab value (assuming similar form factor and weight distribution, which is why i picked the missiles above), because regardless of if the value is in meters, or unitless, the physical distance from the control surfaces should increase with an increasing missile length, but its not the case as seen above.
- AAM-4 has a value almost 50% larger than that of AIM-120/R-77 despite having almost the exact same size
- PL-12’s have the smallest value despite being the longest missiles
- MICA shares a value along with most of the other missiles despite being the shortest by half a meter
Toss in other missiles and it gets even weirder:
AIM-54 variants: 3.96m / 0.05
Fakour 90: 4.25m / 0.35
AGM-144 variants: 1.63m / 0.01
Brimstone: 1.803m / 0.075
- F90 gets 7x the value AIM-54’s gets despite similar form factor
- Brimstone gets 7.5x the value used on AGM-114’s despite similar form factor
I just can’t figure out how they choose their numbers…
7 Likes
They select them and adjust them until the missile has the Performance they want to have
2 Likes
Is the PL-12A a lighter buff than expected? The Rmax definitely increased, but the NEZ hasn’t really changed much.
Have anyone tested if the new guidance logic retains energy better at range? Perhaps it would be a buff and not a nerf then
With how the meta is right now no buff to energy retention will ever make up for loss of off the rail pull. It’s a big nerf and anything else is cope unfortunately.
“Why not take into account the 29DCT jamming pod designed and manufactured by AVIC Hongdu (the state-owned enterprise specifically in charge of China’s trainer aircraft business), which was found by users on the Chinese sub-forum? This pod is explicitly equipped with 90 countermeasure dispensers and is confirmed to be compatible with the J-15T .”
10 Likes
where are you hearing specific impulse improvements for solid rocket motors, because there weren’t any for close to 50 years by now
oh well, guess I’m not touching china top tier air anymore
Found some cool stuff on the J-15. It also says max speed is mach 2.17, is this true?
Never trust any information from baijiahao.
1 Like
I see. I haven’t the faintest idea what to and what not to trust when it comes to CN stuff.
Still has some pretty cool gifs.
Maybe you’re right in reality, but in WT, Gaijin has assigned a relatively low specific impulse of 234.7 seconds to the PL-12 and R-77, while giving 239.8 seconds to the AMRAAM and raising it to 244.9 seconds for the R-77-1.
literally the same crap they did to aim120a, slightly buffed perfomance at range, and obliterate the maneuverability, no sources ofc.
Edit: its worse
2 Likes
Is J-15B or J-15T more accurate? I’ve been trying to read up on it a bit and I’ve seen it referred to as both.
T. B is just speculation before the official announcement.
2 Likes
tysm.
ignoring the changes that matter, whilst making it perform worse;-;