Yeah… it’s remarkable how many things in this game ‘should’ work but for some reason do not work, spend a full minute trying to get a lock with a clear line of sight, clear blue skies and it’s out in the open, but the jet attacked the heli and I instantly got a lock on the friendly jet instead.
I have nothing but bad experiences in the Type 93, it constantly fails to lock at things far away and the missiles are useless up close.
Ka -50 just hovering over the spawn, I hit it once but fails to do any worthwhile damage because imagine that, then unable to hit it again because it’s too close.
Replay not working properly either of course, doesn’t show the lock, doesn’t show the missiles, just Warthunder things.
Damaged the hull, but obviously that has zero impact on anything.
Type 91 test
I think it is MQM-74C (CHUKAR II) and KD2R based on the shape of the target plane. The target plane emits smoke every 1 km. it emits smoke 3 times so it is at least 3 km away. Seeing the accuracy of hitting a smaller target than a helicopter at that distance, and even in cloudy conditions, how the performance of the Type 91 missile in the game has been compromised. It’s also strange that it can’t lock because it can fire even when the background is cloudy.
Being as you can see the explosion and then hear the sound of detonation, assuming this is near sea-level the target was hit roughly 2.5km away from the camera position at the very least in the first test firing they demonstrate at 1:13.
In the second successful interception at 4:41 it appears to be more around 3.5km based on the sound delay from explosion to sound return.
Third successful interception at 5:34 appears to be a similar sound delay and a similar 3.5km
In the fourth successful interception at 6:31 the sound delay is longer, and is likely closer to 4.5km or so from the camera based on that delay. However, there was also no smoke when the explosion had happened, either pointing towards longer guidance after the rocket burned out, or instead the Type 91 Kai being used with the smokeless motor instead.
Fifth interception at 8:20 sounds closer to 2.5-3km range.
Sixth interception at 9:07 sounds close to 3.5km again
Seventh interception at 9:48 sounds closer to 3km
In the eighth interception at ~10:53 the range opened up slightly to 3.5-4km
The last attempted interception gives a great demonstration of the one turn performance at the very least, though it’s hard to say how hard it is really pulling and if it could then turn and pull the opposing direction easily without seeing it properly.
As far as the reason why in game the lock gets funny with clouds, is because it operates as a photo-contrast seeker, and thus because the clouds would look darker due to the water vapor blocking the light, it degrades the contrast resolution between the target, which is supposed to be dark, and the surrounding area.
They snuck in detailed damage model for Type 93 for the update. Rip no armor best armor. Missiles in the DM are still stingers and not type 91 missiles Bug report here.
Was it ever specified if the Type-91 used the FIM-92A or -92B’s seeker as a base since I’ve found the following patent for the POST seeker (MIM-72G & FIM-92B and later)
Of which I’m working on a report that would qualify missiles using the POST seeker for the Contrast Seeker Lock-on range extension mechanic.
relevant excerpt from the patent.
The invention resolves the problems of the prior art by a dual mode seeker having point detection in a rosette or spiral scan. Signal processing electronics continuously select the most advantageous mode of operation from the signals of a dual detector and operate within this mode to home the missile.
~~
The missile control section 16, warhead 20, motor section 22 and tail section 24 do not constitute a part of the present invention and therefore details of their construction and function are not deemed necessary except for their operating which is directly related to the seeker head 12 and electronics section 14. If additional information is required in these areas, particularly the control section 16, it can be found in U.S. Ser. Nos. 395,112 and 397,674 both assigned to the same assignee as this application[ Hughes Missile Systems Co ]
~~
The signal information derived from the IR and UV channels is fed to a logic selector 148 which selects the proper mode for target tracking. The signal pulse information from either the IR channel or the UV channel is differentiated
~~
In operation, a pulse is generated by PbS detector 62’ and by Si detector 62" every time the instantaneous field of view is scanned over a target. The repetition rate of these pulses may vary, for example, from 10 pulses per second to 200 pulses per second. The target information generated by the detectors is then amplified by the pulse amplifiers 138, 138’. The amplified pulses are then coupled to the threshold detectors 140, 140’ which are set to trigger at a level just below the peak signal generated by the target. The peak detectors measure the amplitude of the highest contrasting object within the field of view and the resulting peak levels are used to set the thresholds of the threshold detectors. The information from the threshold detectors is coupled to logic selector 148 which selects the proper mode for target tracking. The logic involved in the logic selector circuit is such that, if the signals from both the IR and UV channels are simultaneously present at its input, the IR signal will be preferred over the UV signal. However, should the IR signal vanish for a time longer than 0.25 second, the UV signal will be accepted.
~~
Accordingly, where a target may not be irradiating sufficient infrared energy to be engaged by the missile operating in its normal IR mode, the target may be tracked by the UV mode.
~~
Preferably, the seeker will initially operate in the visual contrast mode until an adequate IR signal is available to home the missile. If a sufficiently IR radiating target is present, the seeker may select and receive in the IR mode.
Also happened to find this one for rolling airframe missiles.
That I’m not sure of, the only thing I was talking about was they are using the wrong model. Previously the missiles it fired were the stingers even though the type 91 missile had it’s own model in the files they just weren’t using it. I did a bug report on that a while back and it got fixed but the x-ray ones did not change. But yea I know nothing about the technical stuff, but it is crappy that every other IR sam’s missiles got better G pull except type 91.
From what I understand it’s neither. The Type 91 uses a CCD visual light imaging seeker, very different from what is found on a Stinger.
Though maybe the backup IR system has some influence from Stinger features, I doubt it would be completely based on it as at that point Japan already had experience in developing their own seeker systems.
Yes you are totally right
And even. The gunner lock to the monitor of missile (if we talk about MANPAD) and the see the Image what create the CCD seeker. Then choose what lock between what seeker image already see and only then launch
Well Gaijin already showed their hand anyways when it comes to AA missiles, they do not believe that the West could produce a better missile than Russia, regardless of what data suggest.
For MANPADS missiles, we reliably know the maneuvering capabilities of the 9M39 with available overload of 10.2G, which is confirmed not only by the overload in technical documentation, but also by the size of the engagement and kill zones of maneuvering targets.
However, these MANPADS systems have only slight differences in the area of aerodynamic surfaces compared to the 9M39, so a multiple increase in average achievable overload compared to the 9M39 cannot be expected.
Therefore, we assume
With this assumption
NATO performance isn’t based on fact or data, it’s based on what they ‘‘believe’’, and what they believe is glorious mother Russia being superior to all.
We hope that we were able to explain the principles of calculating the overload parameters for MANPADS missiles in War Thunder in general terms
What they believe and what assume is called calculating apparently.
The sad reality of the russian bias that “does not exist”.
Not to menton that ZSU-23-4m4 is br 9.3, and so is the type 93.
So the Russians get missiles that work, 4x 23mm center mounted chain guns with AP belts, actual armor, and a radar, at a cheaper repair cost, and at the exact same BR.
I tried to make a suggestion on the forum to put the driver’s camera on the type 93 inside the cabin like the Ystervark instead of being attached to the front windshield but it was denied for being a “bug report” so I created a bug report for it if anyone is interested. I think it would be awesome to have.
