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
Yeah… probably because Vikhrs can’t do it
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
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.
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.
Can you post the cover document stating that is unclass please.
I’ve seen this brought up multiple times, and I don’t see what difference the control loop should make, or dithered control surface actuation as opposed to bang-bang controls. The modifier Gaijin uses is the theoretical maximum average overload that can be achieved with maximum control surface deflection every half turn. Dithering your control surface inputs will reduce the achievable maximum average overload/maximum overload in the maneuvering plane ratio (while increasing precision and reducing energy bleed).
If we (like Gaijin currently does) assume that the available overload data for Stinger and Mistral is the overload in the maneuvering plane this line of reasoning is asking for a nerf of these systems.
That’s a very strong indicator but not a primary source. I’ve seen that, and it’s enough to convince me, but that’s not the standard.
There absolutey is twisting there. Gaijin’s line of reasoning isn’t to artificially nerf the Stinger to a lower overload by comparing it with the Igla. They show two reasonably valid lines of interpretation of overload data (maneuvering plane vs average), claim that there are no good sources that determine which one is correct and then use the comparison to the Igla to make a call in absence of definitive data.
If you do not agree with their assessment that there are no good sources to indicate that the documentation refers to the average overload that is a very fair point to make. So it would be nice if people did so, instead of reducing Gaijins line of reasoning to a strawman.
There is no need to get snippy with me my concerns are the lack of declassifying marks.
The fact that these threads have taken over the wikipedia is crazy. It’s not easy to hijack a google search like that. Not even the Russians know it exists apparently, otherwise they would be looking it up more.
If you need help look at pretty pictures.
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it has no impact.
They prevent the build up of inertia, and so reduce acceleration losses during state change as they ensure that the aerodynamics remain more uniform regardless of the actual misalignment between the Control and Command Plane over a rotation, and that surface changes are kept in phase, and proportional with the rotation over flight.
It’s not, this is the limit after these things are taken into account as the closed-loop autopilot permits the use of a less statically stable design, and thus higher maneuverability, the same way the F-16’s digital autopilot does. and all that needs to happen for that is, the Center of lift to be shifted away from the center of mass. Which also happens to be a thing that was done to improve short range performance with the AIM-120, and thus the changes made from the Redeye to the Redeye-II.
There is, its the one that directly states values, it doesn’t matter how it works. And even so sources relevant to the Igla don’t claim the higher maximum overload, but the averaged value. so it’s obvious if you treat them the same, it follows that the values stated for the FIM-92 already take this coefficient into account.
Again refer to the prior post’s Patent excerpts and that there is limited acceleration in the horizontal plane for the FIM-92 (, Fig 6d.) where it (Quadrature lift) is significant for the FIM-43 (, Fig9.), and should be self evident that they function differently.
Spawning CAP is fun, I managed to get 7 air kills in my JAS39 +bonus ground kill on an SPAA
How it works matters a lot, as does understanding Gaijin’s line of reasoning, as that determines what you should argue to poke holes into it. And honestly, you could do a better job at that, as you still don’t clearly address the main issues with the MANPADS Missiles and Overload: The Technical Details devblog (at least not here) and get lost in details. Interestingly enough the introduction of the patent you linked really stresses the difference in the second paragraph (open loop->aerodynamically stable design required->low maneuverability and presumably acceleration trailing off after control inputs almost immediately).
I’m nowhere near as qualified as you to piece this together (and (I think) I personally understood the problems with the devblog for the first time just now), but that could probably look something like this:
1.) The Devblog assumes that control surface deflection and acceleration are proportionally related, and presumably that the highest possible average overload can be achieved by maximum control surface deflection every half turn.
2.) That is too much of a simplification and at best an approximation of the behaviour of aerodynamically stable designs (as required by open loop autopilots).
3.) The Stinger (and presumably Mistral) uses a closed loop autopilot and an aerodynamically less stable/unstable design, requiring less control moment to achieve and especially maintain AoA.
4.) As can be seen in Figure 6e (I don’t really understand why you don’t stress that part at all, it seems the most important one to me) maximum pitch rate and thus control surface deflection is only required for the initial raising of airframe AoA. Once a high AoA is achieved it can be maintained with comparatively small pitch rate and thus control surface deflection. The airframe can continously operate close to its design limits, even when pitch and acceleration axes are out of phase (Fig. 6c/6d).
Thanks for the input, this was really interesting and changed my point of view on the issue.
But it would greatly help if you communicated a broken down version instead of making reading and somewhat understanding the patent a requirement for following the points you do make. You’re skipping over a whole bunch of essentials (like the massive difference between an aerodynamically stable and minimally stable/unstable missile design) to get lost in guidance system minutia.
Nothing Crazy. Its being like since day one of this thread. There is not much info about “KH-38MT” on internet or search. That its why since day one has being like that.
It’s often fairly difficult to tell exactly where deficiencies lie in any given person’s understanding of the issue, let alone their level of technical literacy regarding a topic or papers and their willingness to go and then bridge them (or have the time to do so), themselves even if I provide direct links to relevant assets to do so, also to some degree not everyone is willing to even accept any explanation provided and will challenge it regardless of supplied references and sources, which is why I constantly link backwards for the lay third-party to judge for themselves (should they wish) the level to which I am will to go to to show sources.
To some degree I’d expect and want some push back on issues so I can refine explanations and find reasons and further avenues to go looking for bridging sources to strengthen arguments and gradually expand the pool of excerpts that I myself know about and can then further reference.
For example How would you even go about explaining Control-loop topology to the average WT forum user, it just gets into the weeds far to quickly, or otherwise into university level math that many aren’t even able to conceptualize, due to lacking five or six critical layers of understanding to even approach the simplified block / flow diagrams.
When writing the report itself, I hit the character limit four times over (and source limit, for direct submission, had to use a zip file) for the bug report portal and repeatedly had to make recursive executive calls as to which major group of arguments to focus on and remove others that had less evidence, more tenuous links, or otherwise less relevant in order to make things significantly more concise to free up headroom in the character count so I couldn’t actually reference, or cover all of the contributing areas I wanted it to.
Much of the lack of flow is solely caused of multiple concurrent re-writes, and about 85% of the relevant content of the report being on the cutting room floor somewhere due to the reduction of scope.
I get it but, to some degree I’m limited by what sources & excerpts I have on hand and the areas where I feel that the Article explaining Gaijin’s reasoning is weakest, or makes jumps in the logic compared to the weight of evidence to hand that can be directly linked to the FIM-43, -92 or Igla, and this be self evidently directly relevant, instead of being imposed as relevant by those on-high.
Also I don’t have the time or drive to cover all potential avenues, And I doubt that people really want my specific interpretation what is important without at least some way to see for themselves within a technical discussion, because as evident I will minimize some aspects simply because I feel I don’t have what I need to prove things concretely, or at least without something to back up my position, or become to circular where new evidence keep being introduced progressively instead of reaching consensus as to what has already been provided.
