Britain, Japan, and China also have Gepard equivalents and they’ve managed to maintain a BR of 8.3 alongside it, so I don’t really see your point.
5 Likes
Eh, I kind of exaggerated about the gepard thing, but I can be sure of one thing regardless of br - it’s not getting an accurate radar lol
2 Likes
If it gets proxy round, it will be higher in BR than the rest.
Of course, pitold was suggesting that it would be 8.7-9.0 minimum even without proximity ammo, and as a counterpoint was providing similar vehicles that are currently at 8.3 despite not being in the German tree.
Without proxy I do not see a reason to put it higher than 8.3, unless they move the rest of KDA users around
1 Like
Well the XM246 has a better FCS than Gepard, it should feature optical and combined optical/radar tracking which was a DIVAD requirement:
And given that the M247 had full hemisphere radar coverage, the XM246 probably did too, so no blind spot for planes to hide in.
It also has better armor, which is similar to the first Bradley. In game the Bradley armor is too weak by ~50% which I have bug reported, let’s see when it gets implemented though, should be all-round ~38mm RHA equivalent, roof 38 mm aluminium.
Now how well Gaijin has researched, what they choose to do is another question entirely. Would not be surprised if its exactly like a Gepard, just slower and heavier.
7 Likes
Accurately hitting flying objects are difficult in real life as well, there are many things that are not modeled in WT that have a deleterious effect on long range AA fire, by just making the radar be less accurate you save having to model all the other stuff. However, the main issue is not the accuracy of the radar, but the lead indicator. It shows where the plane is going to be if it retained its current speed and heading until the bullet intercepts. It doesn’t consider past movement so it can’t predict turns at all, which means that any minor adjustment by the pilot turns into a miss if the player doesn’t try to interpret what the pilot is doing and input lead relative to the lead indicator.
I know, but that doesn’t give Gaijins the right to make radars in the game so horribly inaccurate.
Yes, and I know this, but as far as I know, in reality the electronic system should calculate the slip of the aircraft/helicopter relative to its stable trajectory, of course, within reasonable limits, and give the correct lead point to the automatic gun guidance drives. Otherwise, evasion from short bursts of radar SPAA in reality would consist only in slight slip relative to its future trajectory, which is hard to believe.
Yes, and I know this, but as far as I know, in reality the electronic system should calculate the slip of the aircraft/helicopter relative to its stable trajectory, of course, within reasonable limits, and give the correct lead point to the automatic gun guidance drives. Otherwise, evasion from short bursts of radar SPAA in reality would consist only in slight slip relative to its future trajectory, which is hard to believe.
Sory I didn’t make it clear that I was talking about ingame lead. IRL the DIVADs used a Kalman filter to do prediction and the guns were able to predict continous turns, from all public info I have found the DIVAD guns needed to be able to hit a target manuvering at up to 2G. The Gepard only got a Kalman filter in the A2 version. But really they were only designed to hit aircraft that were flying straight, like during an attack. Because of the time it takes for the bullet to travel several km, the plane just have to make a small turn out to defeat the bullet. Thats why missiles took over offcause.
2 Likes
Oh, I see, thank you.
It is clear that in reality the aircraft/helicopter has dips in the radar cross section intensity, but in this case normal radars have automatic gain control of the receiving cascade sensitivity. I am more interested in issues related to reflections from the surface, according to books and rumors that I read for normal Doppler radars Gepard & 2S6 there are filters that effectively suppress the “ghost reflection of the target” aka antipode when it flies at low altitude. At the same time, if I am not mistaken, this reflection in reality occurs only from surfaces with a periodically uneven structure, such as ripples on the sea surface or something similar on land, and not ± flat fields as on the maps in this game.
I read about the Kalman filter. As I understand it, it’s just another random noise suppression filter, maybe more effective. And it doesn’t seem to be related to tracking systems and calculating the “sliding” of targets.
The Kalman filter is indeed a noise supression filter, used to make the tracking smoother and that is what was implemented in the tracking and prediction system on GLAADS and DIVAD, prior systems used linear projection, that is vulnerable to noise, as any noise could affected the lead significantly.
Since what years is it used? I was just wondering if the latest version of 2S6M1 has a Kalman filter or a linear version.
Great, haven’t played Gepard for a long time. Went into battle on it now and got 3 assists in destroying helicopters, all thanks to the crooked radar and crooked ballistic computer. Glory to Gaidzins, “the most realistic game” as they like to brag brazenly.
This is one of the reasons why I hate SPAA gun radars. They are curves and absolutely useless even against aircraft. Their danger to aviation in the game is something like Christmas sparklers.
The GLAADS and DIVADs are from the 1970ties and although I am not that familiar with Russian systems, the M1 is from early 2000’s so I would be surprised if it didin’t use a Kalman filter.
1 Like
maybe even the first and earliest version of 2S6 had Kalman, got it.
There’s also radars that are too accurate though, e.g the Gepard.
No, it is not accurate, just like its ballistic computer, I have quite a few battles on it. You don’t have to tell me fairy tales.
