Sadly when it comes to players needing to prove data we must bring sourxes but they can use their own beleifs and thoughts because they own the game.
7 Likes
Yes pretty much
The only reason they got away with it : SPAAs aren’t the main focus of the playerbase
I hope they fix them now that gaijin wants to add more SPAA and even multi-vehicle SPAA.
3 Likes
All I’m seeing is, “If Russia can’t do it, no one else can.”
Like how hard is it to give the damn stinger photo contrast mode of the sake of balance. They do it all the time…
2 Likes
accepted that stinger has wrong g limit => forwarded as suggestion lmao
5 Likes
That’s how it works.
It’s been almost 8 months since it was accepted(just after Seek and Destroy, on the 24th of June 2024), if it was going to be actioned, it would have by now considering that it’s been multiple Majors.
It makes me wonder how reports are Triaged (if at all), since it’s obviously not just a “First in, First out” system.
4 Likes
Centurion Mk10 missing trunnion (only 200mm of armour) was first reported like 8 years ago. Still not fixed.
5 Likes
IIRC most bug reports about armor usaually taking them very long time to adjust. M60A1s mantlet for example have been broken (weaken) since they’re added. Only after M60A3 are add that Gaijin starting to give them volumetric armor. (along side others Patton mantlet)
But then there are certain bug reports (like Stinger, or smokeless MIM-72E) that (in theory) would only require them a few minutes to 1-2 hours to change /adjust value in the code , Test. Then make the patch goes live.
I still remember the 20mm Mark 4 Mod 0 Gunpod had 1/10th the rate of fire it should, on the A-4E, when the US H-34 which was added before it was correct.
It was only missing one character (3600 vs 360) and that took more than a year to get fixed after it war accepted.
3 Likes
The M60A1 mantlet still isn’t correct, should provide a minimum of ~330 mm of armor, extending up to ~430 mm at the edges. It was found to be immune to the T-62’s APFSDS by the Soviets when they test fired against it (unsure which APFSDS, but very likely both that the basic T-62 gets).
Stinger agility (and by extension, Mistral and Type 91) would be a bit more complex than setting a “smokeless motor: true” flag in the code.
Stat card G load (IE: irrelevant) changes are similarly simple. But getting Stinger to actually hit 25 G requires them to increase fin AoA, change the PID controller to be capable of handling that and then tune the guidance/flight/drag parameters to actually reliably hit 25G. And that’s a decent amount of effort involved, especially when it comes to PID controller tuning. Depending on how the devs decide to tune PID controllers, it may just take upward of weeks to make one missile pull harder correctly.
1 Like
They have done most of the work already, all they would only need to slightly modify the initial configuration that they implemented (update 1.91) it in. considering the report only claims 20~22G, not 25 for the Stinger.
The nerf occurred unprompted in 1.97, as a point of interest.
4 Likes
Yep according to report test (done by Soviet) on M60A1. M60A1 mantlet should be immue to 3BM-3 and 3BM-4. But they’re still vulnerable to HEAT-FS
Thank you for the clarify about Stinger agility.
But what i’m saying is that with certain bug report. It shouldn’t take them over a month to solve.
As for Stinger case. if what you said are true. Then at least it could be solve within 2-3 months or 5 at most (i guess). If they actually did do somethings about them (hopefully)
Yeah, the issue is that that old config was pre-missile physics change and used combined TVC+canard control and not RAM canard control, at least when I checked files last. Who knows what other things have to be messed with in the age of “improved” missile flight models and “more accurate” controls.
I’m not really sure they also still have old versions of the flight parameters still stored on their internal servers.
There is no special missile control for ram missiles in-game they just simulate it the same as anything else
1 Like
3 Likes
Well it’s more so that currently the Specialized rules are taken into consideration before limits are decided upon via G averaging, as detailed in the MANPADS article;
3 Likes
Well said
Get the devs on this
English is not my native language, I use machine translation. But I have a couple of thoughts why Soviet MANPADS use Bang-bang control, first of all, it is possible that the USSR did not have compact powerful power sources capable of simultaneously powering the gyroscope, rudders, electronic control circuit and seeker. Secondly, it is possible that control surfaces based on a powder pressure generator were significantly cheaper to produce, note that such control is used on all Soviet and Russian MANPADS: Strela 2, Strela 2M, Strela 3, Igla, Igla-S and possibly Vebra. For the defense industry, it was important to use old developments so as not to restructure production, for example, for new electric proportional control drives. If I understand correctly, Stingers and other Western MANPADS use electric proportional control drives, unlike the Soviet ones based on gunpowder pressure (the gunpowder charge burns for 5 seconds and creates pressure that controls the rudders through the solenoid valves, deflecting them to the extreme position). Perhaps this is the difference in the real possible overload of Stingers in 20-22G and why they are superior to Soviet-Russian MANPADS. Also, the game does not implement the Stinger homing head for the near UV channel.
Many Russian users do not understand the principle of operation of the stinger’s UV channel, believing that it is only for protection against interference, but as was indicated above in this topic, the UV channel is the main second channel that works on a very similar scheme to the photocontrast method, using UV radiation from the Sun and allows you to capture targets with low or zero IR radiation (they look like black dots in the UV range against the background of the UV sky).
Here is an example of a real terrain in UV and visible conditions:
https://jmcscientificconsulting.com/tasmania-landscape-photography-in-uv-visible-and-ir/
This method has strong advantages in the form of capturing targets with zero IR signature, but like photo contrast, it has disadvantages in case of bad weather - heavy clouds, night, fog, etc. In these cases, the near UV range becomes unavailable for creating UV contrast for targets. Therefore, in theory, aircraft and helicopters can quite easily deceive the Stinger with heat traps at night and in bad weather, even if their IR signature is sufficient for the homing head to capture.
In contrast, if I correctly understood the operating principle of the Igla homing head, the Igla can capture targets in any weather and time of day if it has sufficient IR radiation. Perhaps the Igla IR homing head is less sensitive than the Stinger IR channel, or they are approximately comparable.
I found data on the sensitivity of the IR homing heads of the Strela 2 (9Э46), Strela 3 (9Э45), Igla-1 (9Э418) and Igla (9Э410 = 4,25×10^(-10) W/cm^2) (which is in the game):
But unfortunately I have not come across data on the sensitivity of the IR Stinger.
If you want, I can post a document containing information about all MANPADS starting with the Arrow 2 and ending with the Igla (a table of the homing head sensitivity from it), but it weighs 14.6 MB and the forum here prohibits files larger than 4 MB.
4 Likes