Talk:SRAAM
Proposed sidebar
I've added a proposed sidebar for infrared homing air-to-air missiles, if you have any feedback discuss it here. Inspiration was taken from the Torpedo sidebar and the AGM-22 sidebar. All values are fact apart from Maximum effective range, which is subjective (although there is likely to be general consensus), I belive this value is necessary so people have an idea what sort of range they can fire their missiles at. I felt Max flight time and Max flight distance were useful as the missile will self destruct after whichever is reached sooner. As for Power up time and Max acquisition time are just useful to know when you are planning your engagements. I believe the reasoning for all the other fields are reasonably self explanatory. There are also two commented out lines relating to all-aspect lock on distance (for all aspect missiles), and TNT equivalent (for missiles with an explosive other than TNT). Not sure if it is worth trying to make this a template?--Flame2512 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I personally believe anything in the sidebar should be hard facts so I would prefer "max effective range" to be put into the "usage in battle" section. I would also take off everything below the row 'specification'. That info doesn't seem useful for the missile's usage in WT. --blastedryan (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like some sort of effective range should be placed in the side bar, as it is important information to know, so should be clearly visible instead of being berried in the article text. Perhaps change the title to "Max recommended Range" or something like that to make it clear it is not pure fact. Can't comment on other missiles, but with the SRAAM it is pretty cut and dry that if you fire from outside 1 km (1.2 km under ideal conditions with a speed advantage over your target) the missile will explode before it reaches the target. As for the specification stuff I'm sort of open either-way; it was included for continuity with other weapon sidebars, I guess it doesn't really do any harm and is interesting. --Flame2512 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think we can quantitatively measure the recommended range. The reason it explodes before it reaches a target 1km away is because the target is moving away from it, right? So if a plane was going 900km/h(250m/s) in the missile's 3.7second lifespan the plane would have traveled 925 m away from its original position. So the missile fired at 1km must travel nearly 2km. If we can state our assumptions and 'math out' a reasonable approximation then I'm all for it.--blastedryan (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Missiles are programmed to explode after reaching their max flight time, maximum distance travelled (measured from where the missile was fired), or time without a locked target (i.e. if a missile looses it's lock it will explode after x seconds); whichever comes first. In the SRAAM the limiting factor is the lifespan (it will reach 3.7 secs flight time before it reaches 3,000 m distance), I can't say that would be the case for every missile. There isn't really a good way to get the number from maths; if you are going fast and your target is going slow then you can fire the missile from further away (about 1.2 km), but in most combat situations where you and your target are fairly close in terms of speed you don't want to fire much outside of 1 km I think there are too many variables to work out a hard figure with maths; it's also not clear to me how Gaijin model missile acceleration (although I would certainly like to find out). I have filled in the rest of the page and for the time being reworded it slightly to make it clearer that it is a recommendation and not a hard fact. --Flame2512 (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- So the way I would math it out is like this. Assume the target's speed is 900km/h(250m/s). With 'perfect acceleration'(so 1000m/s instantly), the missile will go 3000 m in 3 seconds and poof. In those 3 sec the target goes 750 m. So the target will get away if you fire at 2250m.
If the missile has worse case acceleration it would reach 1000 m/s at 3.7 sec. Meaning the missile accelerates at ~270 m/s^2 (1000 / 3.7). Plug that into Dist = .5 * accel * t^2 and the missile would have traveled 1850 m. The target in those 3.7 sec would have traveled 925 m. So if you fire at 925 m(1850 - 925), you would miss.
With the upper and lower bounds we can inject some subjective 'experience' and say it is reasonable.--blastedryan (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) - The motor burn time helps out a lot with the estimate. We can assume the missile accelerates the entire duration of the burn time and stays at max velocity for the remaining flight time. So we can do D= .5*(1000/3.2)*3.2^2 (acceleration phase)+1000*.5. (cruise phase) and get 2.1km. So with the same 900km/h target we need to fire at 1175m. Add in a bit of drag and the missile maneuvering and it'll be under 1.1km. Let me try out my calculation on the other missiles you've worked on.--blastedryan (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
- So the way I would math it out is like this. Assume the target's speed is 900km/h(250m/s). With 'perfect acceleration'(so 1000m/s instantly), the missile will go 3000 m in 3 seconds and poof. In those 3 sec the target goes 750 m. So the target will get away if you fire at 2250m.
- Missiles are programmed to explode after reaching their max flight time, maximum distance travelled (measured from where the missile was fired), or time without a locked target (i.e. if a missile looses it's lock it will explode after x seconds); whichever comes first. In the SRAAM the limiting factor is the lifespan (it will reach 3.7 secs flight time before it reaches 3,000 m distance), I can't say that would be the case for every missile. There isn't really a good way to get the number from maths; if you are going fast and your target is going slow then you can fire the missile from further away (about 1.2 km), but in most combat situations where you and your target are fairly close in terms of speed you don't want to fire much outside of 1 km I think there are too many variables to work out a hard figure with maths; it's also not clear to me how Gaijin model missile acceleration (although I would certainly like to find out). I have filled in the rest of the page and for the time being reworded it slightly to make it clearer that it is a recommendation and not a hard fact. --Flame2512 (talk) 10:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think we can quantitatively measure the recommended range. The reason it explodes before it reaches a target 1km away is because the target is moving away from it, right? So if a plane was going 900km/h(250m/s) in the missile's 3.7second lifespan the plane would have traveled 925 m away from its original position. So the missile fired at 1km must travel nearly 2km. If we can state our assumptions and 'math out' a reasonable approximation then I'm all for it.--blastedryan (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like some sort of effective range should be placed in the side bar, as it is important information to know, so should be clearly visible instead of being berried in the article text. Perhaps change the title to "Max recommended Range" or something like that to make it clear it is not pure fact. Can't comment on other missiles, but with the SRAAM it is pretty cut and dry that if you fire from outside 1 km (1.2 km under ideal conditions with a speed advantage over your target) the missile will explode before it reaches the target. As for the specification stuff I'm sort of open either-way; it was included for continuity with other weapon sidebars, I guess it doesn't really do any harm and is interesting. --Flame2512 (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Sidebar image
Just wondering which style of image people think looks better for missile sidebars. The missile just after being fired, or the missile by itself. Examples below:
--Flame2512 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have access to test the missiles, but do the fins flip out at all after leaving the launch tubes? I found that the FFAR Mighty Mouse rockets do not do that in-game, but should (as they do in real life, hence the name "Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR)". I submitted a bug report on that one. Seems like it would be goofy to see this "flying stick" without its fins, but maybe that is a detail the players don't really care about. Unfortunately for those who take screenshots of them in action, they just are not complete without their fins. Again, I do like how the sidebar turned out. I think in this instance, the image with the jet and the missile looks the best, to me the missile by itself looks kind of goofy. Also, I made those sidebars you listed (copied from other work done in the wiki, it was tough to figure out what all to put in it, I think the one you created has a lot of good and useful information.--AN_TRN_26 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- In game when you fire the missile no fins ever come out of it, but going off of this image from Wikipedia it looks like the missile does have foldout fins (although thrust vectoring is an important part of its manoeuvring); so it looks like Gaijin just hasn't modelled them. --Flame2512 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correct, I believe the fins are for stabilization only, pretty nifty how the missile does manoeuvre with the thrust vectoring. Similar thing with the Mk.13/44 torpedo, it has frangible plywood affixed to the nose and tail of the torpedo to stabilize it in flight and allow it to be dropped at higher altitudes and is supposed to break away (obliterate is a better word) when it hits the water, but in-game they don't and you can see the torpedo underwater with the shroud and box still attached. --AN_TRN_26 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC) - also, the M8 has the same issue with the fins not flipping out upon launch.
Explanation of changes
So recently Gaijin slightly changed the way one aspect of missiles work. Previously all missiles could be slaved to radar, now only certain ones can, so I've added this to the stat card. While I was at it I've changed the Uncaged Lock FoV field to Seeker gimbal limit and halved the value to try and make things clearer. Before the value represented the maximum FoV of the seeker when it was gimballing (in flight or otherwise), as this most noticeable affect of this was the size of the outer ring on uncaged seekers that was how I labelled it. However what this value truly represents is how far the seeker can look off-boresight. Thus it also affects how far off-centre the missile can track a target while being slaved to the radar, and how far off centre it can track a target while flying. To put it simply a higher number will produce a bigger outer-circle for missiles with uncaged seekers, let the missile look further off-boresight when being slaved to radar, and track better. I have tried to update this field to better represent how it affects the missile. Not sure if I've been able to word it great in the annotation though, so if you've got a better way of getting the point across (without being too wordy) then feel free to suggest improvements.--Flame2512 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
