I’m more confused as to why it has a variable PID controller unlike every other missile in-game. Its probably the source of the problem to some degree. I raised this issue before but it got flagged by the group of ppl who run around the forums flagging anything from anyone they dont like lmao.
I think they are trying to test new mechanics with it. We are probably going to get more thrust vectoring missiles in the upcoming updates.
I think variable PID has something to do with thrust vectoring. Since some values arent that constant compared to other missiles.
MBDA MICA is the only upcoming thrust vectoring missile afaik. Stuff like AIM-9X or IRIS-T isnt coming for a while id guess, seeing as thats 15+ years from the current missile tech for western vehicles, and more like 30+ years for russian missiles
Gaijin could always nerf them into the ground like they enjoy doing tho and then spend 1 year+ gaslighting the community about technical documents and the likes. This works very well with newer missiles since technical documents are harder to come by
Is R-73E same as the current R-73 in game?
yeah
1 Like
FOV tightening is a great technique for avoiding flares entering the FOV of the seeker, but really does nothing to help when they are in LOS.
In fact it works against the missile because once a flare is captured in the FOV its pulled off from the target and is very unlikely to then catch the target in the FOV again due to the tightening FOV.
You can see this by using R-60M or AIM-9L, lock a flaring target and watch the flare burn out as the engine is just in the FOV. The seeker will snap back to the target. In the same scenario the R-73 FOV would be too small to “catch” the target again.
So in short the R-73 is good at potentially avoiding the flares coming into its FOV at all, buts its worse once they have.
2 Likes
If mica can come then why not AIM-9X?
Yeah its a copy paste.
Maybe, but the changing PID intervals are at weird steps… 3 seconds, 3.5 seconds, 5.5 seconds, and 6 seconds, despite the missile being an all boost motor at 5.5 seconds burn time and no delay.
I think they tried to copy those values from some performance graph. I don’t see any reason to add intervals.
Nonsense
They could add MICA RF and hold out on MICA IR like they did for R-27ET
I think they have added those intervals to prevent the missile from spinning out of control like the sraam
Clearly it didnt work
Maybe they have some game engine limitations
I don’t understand why you would think that an aim-9l would hit here, you didn’t even consider the possibility of kfir cutting throttle, which is very likely the case considering the closing speed
1 Like
yup
PIDs can be really complicated. Hopefully they will fine tune it soon.
Never said FoV tightening is bad, just that assuming a missile will avoid most/all flares simply on the basis that it HAS a form of IRCCM regardless of how that IRCCM works or how advanced it is is silly.
IMO the handholding mechanics in air RB, such as the spotting mechanics, the missile diamonds, the excessive multipath for “balancing” reasons, etc… all result in players simply not wanting or needing to learn to play properly, which leads to players who dont look into the mechanics of what theyre dealing with, which leads to players making wild assumptions about the function of things. Its a massive problem in this community at this point imo, and predominantly stems from the game design decisions being made.
There’s a reason a lot of players say the best RB air combat can be found in ground battles only at this point…
1 Like
Idk, i think they might be overcomplicating it, but I cant say for sure.
I could understand 2 PID controller changes for a TVC missile, 1 for while the motor burns and 1 without the burn, but 4???
Its likely the primary reason why the missile flies wonky flight paths. Arbitrarily changing you PID terms at set intervals of time in flight irrespective of the target is idiotic imo.
Granted, im saying this without being able to test or or knowing why they did it the way they did, so I could be wrong
1 Like