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.