they don’t do this, Ho Ri still exists despite an SPG with more versatility being at the same BR.
dw XM800Ts HVAP is also fictional, its using a german shell on an American testbed and gaijin refused the bug report
APDS*
thats not true at all lmao, they add things like that when there is truly no option (F-16AJ) the KH-38MT out classes every other A2G weapon if everyone else had a missile equally as strong then I would say sure its fine but they dont. realistically the KH-29 is more of the counterpart to the AGM-65 the US equal at least would be something like SLAM-ER (not asking for it but thats the closest thing I can think of)
2 Likes
completely different class of missiles, kh59mk/mk2 is comparable to slam er
miss the part where I said the closest thing I could think of? realistically the KH-38s shouldnt have even been added to the game in the first place with still to this day zero counters from other countries
7 Likes
the most consistent things on this thread are the lack of proof of this missile and flags on posts because russia mains are not happy about the thread
this one flagged too jeez man
2 Likes
Do you have any example aside the kh-38mt where they have “defaulted” to the best possible quality of thermal displays? Because as far as I can remember I don’t really remember other sights that are as good, and that are coming from obscure vehicles ( for example 2S38 is a test vehicle, but there’s information about it if I am not wrong).
Perhaps we should take the lack of response to the fake weapon as acceptance that these things are now the new standard and re-open allll the bug reports etc that were denied due to “lack of evidence”.
I’ll take the ZA-HVM for starters.
1 Like
AIM-9B had uncooled seeker, hence the poor sensitivity
Subsequent variants had cooled seekers
These are operational limitations, not limits.
They will be indicated in any Soviet instruction. Sometimes extreme (destructive) overloads are indicated, a safety factor must be applied to them (usually 1.5), this will be an overload in which the aircraft will fall apart in the air.
The game applies a 1.05 multiplier (for speed) to “operational limitations” to get the “limits”.
Of course there are other examples from other nations as well … Such as F-16 pulling way beyond its 9G limit …
Ironically it was added with the G-limiter and had it for a while, but then they removed it.
it actually wasnt, iirc that was an AOA limit not a G limit
It’s not hard limited to 9G, its a transient limit that may be exceeded, due to the way that the control laws are modeled. (and more restrictive modes do exist to account for stores configurations, but that’s not really modeled elsewhere).
Further the issue with Gaijin’s implementation was that it didn’t take into account differential surface deflection properly and the feedback in the system, since that also depends on state history and a number of other factors (Angle of Attack, Mach number, static air pressure, etc.), sometimes even recursively or otherwise mixed into multiple channels.
As such it’s a complex system especially if trying to somehow map the various outputs onto a bespoke mouse control system. So it’s not surprising that there are edge cases where things don’t line up.
I do think that it’s fair to a degree that said implementation is treated permissively until it can be properly implemented, though as otherwise there are potential balancing issues created, we really don’t need more F-104 / A-10A’s if we can avoid it.
It just so happens that the F-16 is really the test case for a digital Fly by wire system that people picked up on, Similar issues exist with the Wing Sweep program for the F-14 as well.
Do you mean it may be momentarily exceeded?
Because from pilot accounts I’ve heard, it was “hard limited” to 9G
You could however momentarily exceed it if you were fast and pulling fast, as essentially the system couldn’t keep up with imposing the limits quickly enough …
1 Like
Yes, the system can’t just pull the correct response forces out it’s ass, it’s not magic.
Especially when it has the limiters in the other axis’ to consider simultaneously that mix in the requisite commands to a limited number of physical outputs which is where boundary issues can occur and why even with a digital control system (“Deep”) stalls can still occur.
It will certainly decay to 9G (or lower) depending on the set up, but it’s not instant especially at higher speeds or with complex states.
Well, that’s kinda the point
Because in the game (at least last time I tested it) it sustains >9G load factors (The duration of course depends on the load factor and weight etc)
No they are LRASM or JASSM ER counterparts
Yes, because in game that limit as with all other aircraft is multiplied by 1.5x, it wouldn’t be fair to single out those airframes simply because things can’t be modeled properly.
The 1.5x limit is to account for safety margins that designs and manuals include
But the 9G limiter is an electronic limiter and wouldn’t involve any “margins”
The ability to momentarily go above 9G (due to the control system shortcomings) is:
1- Limited in time
2- Limited in amount (IIRC from pilot accounts you could get 1 or 2 extra Gs for a short period of time)
In the game it goes way way beyond that …
And they could easily model that BTW. I.e. allow it to pull 1 or 2 extra Gs for a limited amount of time if the pilot applies full pitch input at high speeds.
(In fact IIRC it was already modeled … You could get a bit more than 9G and without time limit actually, especially with SB controls …)
I think they removed it to make it more conventional and similar to other planes for the players …