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
It’s from a trial against German MIG-29’s using Archer acquisition rounds. It is not nonsense.
4 Likes
There was an exported version.And the trial is such a source.
1 Like
So the export version uses different techniques for its IRCCM? I doubt that’s the case given its talking about AA-11 and not another subversion. If there were major differences it would have been stipulated so.
6 Likes
I dont think export version uses a different seeker
Yes, the export version is always worse than the original, and they could even disable the block of logic for filtering out interference
1 Like
“Could” until you can demonstrate “does” that’s a meaningless statement.
4 Likes
If you can pay more then export version can be better than the original one
Sometimes it feels like AIM-9M has no inertial drift modeled even though every other weapon with inertial guidance has inertial drift to my understanding which makes it feel like it’s strong.
1 Like
It doesn’t work with USSR… You can’t choose what you will get as soviet ally, you will get what USSR decided to give you.
4 Likes
It doesnt have any inertial code at all actually.
(Left) 9M, (Right) 27ER:
I think its guidance might just lock the missiles current actuators the moment the seeker shuts off, not 100% sure though.
The only difference between the 9L and 9M code is for the smoke visual (and its location in the code) and the bandmask to reject:
It says R-24T and R-73 has same flare resistance performance. Why should it not be considered as nonsense?
1 Like
It’s inertial guidance is definatelly overperforming. And I’m not talking about an aircraft going straight, then yeah it should track, but in game it has no problem predicting any move
1 Like
The seeker shut off time looks to be 0.02 seconds if I’m reading the code right. Its not predicting your moves, its seeker is on and you didnt get enough separation while it shut off.
and as I said, it literally does not have any inertial nav code
Because the same technique defeated both missiles? Sure you might get away with fewer flares, but the 3 flares @ 0.25 second intervals is a release setting for the BOZ-107. So it isn’t like they could’ve tuned it down or bothered doing manual releases to work out exactly how to defeat R-24T without wasting an extra flare. Just that program decoyed both missiles.
Then it’s complete bs, dropping tens of flares and evading but it will still track.
I flare them fine, and I’ve seen video evidence of others doing so too, sounds like a skill issue to me ¯_(ツ)_/¯
And where did British take R-24T from?