Yep, when it existed Mongoose as not yet a thing.
almost 6000 posts in 26 days and still nothing has been proven since the start of the topic, lol
devs are waiting until Russia actually builds the Kh-38MT 
17 Likes
If you have credible sources try to bug report it, i know they already rejected the aps but maybe we can at least get a fixed smoke launcher because other vehicles in game have lwr activated smoke that just work like normal smoke launchers.
Sadly, no. But once I do get my hands on it it will be the first thing I do.
It was actually carrying a brigade of competent engineers and a box of 3rd gen thermals, so they could get there and make a working unit themselves, photograph it and then flee. Possibly a bag of magic dust is also involved, perhaps a priest as well.
You didn’t understand the point they made at all. If 22G is the overload in the maneuvering plane a rolling airframe missile can obviously not achieve that for any relevant time. Their post on it even had nice pictures and graphs to explain it.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest 22g is sustained pull and additional sources since reinforce that fact. Gaijin turned around and said “Igla can’t do this so we don’t understand how the stinger could possibly do this”
4 Likes
You claimed that it should still be able to pull 22G “even if Gaijins reasoning is right”, which is objectively wrong.
There are no good sources that unequivocally state that 22G is the sustained pull and Gaijin only used the comparison with the Igla to justify which line of interpretation they’re going with. Maybe they would be more inclined to enter conversations with the community if people at least had the decency to not twist their words.
1 Like
reminds me of how gaijin said they dont think the brimstone can pull 40 degrees of AoA because the fins are to small (its not the fins that generate the AoA)
At which point the only way to interrupt those sources any differently is if it’s the peek pull. But that is still set to only 13G in game.
So no matter which way you spin it. Gaijin artificially nerfed the stinger because Igla isn’t as good.
And more sources since seem to prove the higher sustained pull with a bug report more than a year old accepted covering the matter
3 Likes
Yeah… probably because Vikhrs can’t do it
1 Like
yeah but igla has the wrong g pull anyway?
igla is 20g rn and stinger is 13g
how can igla pull 20g when stinger cant go 22g and they dont even understand how stinger work?
What?
Did you even read their dev post on it? No, that’s not what they did, or said. They had to decide if the overload data is the average overload or the overload in the maneuvering plane. They used the comparison with the Igla to justify which of those two options they went for.
The Igla is at 10g, or did I miss something?
Right, they used Igla data which is an entirely different missile that operates in an entirely different guidance method as justification to nerf the stinger. @tripod2008 I believe has all the necessary sources for round 2 in getting the stinger fixed
9 Likes
It’s a rolling airframe missile, just like Stinger and Mistral. And the comparison wasn’t used to “nerf” it, it was used to decide which of two possible interpretations of the available data to go for. In absence of more definitive data the comparison of similar systems is nothing unreasonable to do. You can disagree if you want, misconstruing Gaijins line of reasoning is cheap and uncalled for.
In their defence there is precisely 0 evidence that it can pull 40° AoA.
1 Like
Igla has just 10.2 G
nevermind i got confused
That’s exactly the issue though, this Overload in the maneuvering plane bunk straight up assumes that it works the same way as the earlier FIM-43 Redeye, with an open control loop, and non-dithered control surfaces.
based on absolutely nothing presented in the actual article itself and presents no actual evidence to support such an assertion other than they look similar and have a similar role.
Documentation that claims the higher limit alongside other missiles that use other control schema, for which you would think that loading conditions would be unified to allow them to be directly compared by pilots would be reasonable.
Which was what was presented in the actioned report, and subsequently to which the Article was written in response to.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BZtiBBaH7uwL
There are, and they were provided initially
Got any reason why tables wouldn’t be presented in a uniform and consistent manor?
Especially when the listed values for “Lateral-Acceleration”, provided for other systems agree with other sources and their subsequent implementation in game.
There is no twisting here, just an ardent request for them to actually implement things as laid out in bug report(s), especially those directly backed by Primary sources, not try and pretend that they can’t read, or that a source doesn’t say something that it obviously does.
They don’t even substantively address the sources that were provided in the report in the Article, and explain why it should apply in their erroneous opinion. Which would have helped them catch their mistake before they pushed it live.
They literally directly ignored a clearly worded statement with no ambiguity; anyway are the following excerpts from the relevant patent, not enough to put it to bed?
This should be pretty open and shut in this case. And having dragged their feet on it for nearly nine months really doesn’t help, Hell I’m not even asking for a retraction to be issued.
It’s not, it’s a Dead ringer for the FIM-43, as is their explanation, and reasoning as being solely applicable to an open loop control scheme.
Which does not apply in this case since it has been established that the Stinger utilizes a planar Accelerometer, and a closed feedback loop, so can preemptively correct for input and not overshoot optimal performance.
15 Likes