Difference between revisions of "Talk:SRAAM"

From War Thunder Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Response)
m (Proposed sidebar)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
: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. --[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|talk]]) 22:21, 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. --[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|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. --[[User:U13682523|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523|talk]]) 22:12, 4 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. --[[User:U13682523|U13682523]] ([[User talk:U13682523|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.--[[User:U30585107|U30585107]] ([[User talk:U30585107|talk]]) 02:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  
 
== Sidebar image ==
 
== Sidebar image ==

Revision as of 02:34, 5 November 2019

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)

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:
SRAAM Fired.jpgMissile SRAAM.jpg
--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.