junae Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Hi!! I've heard since the 1.11 version, that Tunguskas can intercept incoming missiles fired into them... I don't know if it's realistic or not, but I noticed that other SAM stations can do that too (Strellas, Dog Ears, and others), in my opinion this is getting boring so every missile I fire is a waste of time... no matter if it's from russian (KH29) or American side (Mavericks). ED has plans to rollback this or we'll have to learn to live with it? =FN= Six o'Clock Member of Falcões da Noite Squadron Florianopolis :: Brazil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Hi!! I've heard since the 1.11 version, that Tunguskas can intercept incoming missiles fired into them... I don't know if it's realistic or not, but I noticed that other SAM stations can do that too (Strellas, Dog Ears, and others), in my opinion this is getting boring so every missile I fire is a waste of time... no matter if it's from russian (KH29) or American side (Mavericks). ED has plans to rollback this or we'll have to learn to live with it? Oh no I can't take it anymore ... take a look at the monster I started, so many regrets ... they hijacked my thread and it is near 30 pages of endless Tunguska babble ... one can pen an encyclopedia volume on Tunguskas alone with all the information in there. Please don't start another!!!111 :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-konkussion Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 :icon_jook :icon_hang :icon_hang :icon_hang [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterj Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 If I'm not misstaken some of the older hardware shouldn't be able to do it, and that is considered a bug, thus should be fixed at some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 No, Manny. Yours was "Son of the Monster". This was the original monster. http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=11259 And it is NOT realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
192nd_Erdem Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I think it's realistic and you're just beating a by opening this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junae Posted December 6, 2005 Author Share Posted December 6, 2005 Guys, I don't want start another loooooooong thread, nor wanting to extend the subject, I just want to know if the things are going to be fixed or will stay just as it is now... A thousand apologies for this thread, hehe!!! SORRRRRRRY!!! =FN= Six o'Clock Member of Falcões da Noite Squadron Florianopolis :: Brazil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 quote=S77th-GOYA And it is NOT realistic. Goya, I suggest you run now...:p You are gettin in too deepr; the only escape is to consider that this thread never started ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 quote=192nd_Erdem I think it's realistic and you're just beating a by opening this thread. Lol Erdem, where did you get that animated GIF from? So applicable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anivanov Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 tunguskas sucks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 tunguskas sucks!!! LOL, there you have it. End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Read the "Tunguskas not that agian..." thread and stop whining. The only unrealistic thing about the Tunguskas in game are its missiles, they are moddled totally wrong propulsion wise, everything else corresponds to the real-life vanilla, vintage 1980 Tunguska, nothing upgraded or modernised, the first batch of Tunguskas were able to shoot down Maverick/Harm sized missiles. The missiles' flight profile is all wrong however, it should be ballistic and the second stage should coast on inertia (i.e., no rocket). Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junae Posted December 7, 2005 Author Share Posted December 7, 2005 Again, i don't want to extend the subject (as I can see you're so upset with it), but what about other SAMs shooting down Mavericks and KH29s? In my opinion ED should revert the SAM behavior to the 1.1 standards... ;) =FN= Six o'Clock Member of Falcões da Noite Squadron Florianopolis :: Brazil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 THat wouldn't be correct either. A lot of new SAMs have the capability of doing this. Right now you can only have one or the other. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huhn Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 the missiles shouldn`t be ballistic. this would be nonsense because the engines burntime of sams or agms is not much less than its flighttime. but its questionable if the agms aren't to fast for the sams. for instance a strela can attack a target with max. 300m/s but an agm-65 is a bit faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bSr.LCsta Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 OMFG!!!! Not another one!!!! is this ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 the missiles shouldn`t be ballistic. this would be nonsense because the engines burntime of sams or agms is not much less than its flighttime. but its questionable if the agms aren't to fast for the sams. for instance a strela can attack a target with max. 300m/s but an agm-65 is a bit faster. Who read the article which described the vanilla Tunguska up into details on how the radar signal noise of the targeting system is. You really think I just made up that the missile itselself has no active propulsion? The missile is accelerated in 2.6 seconds up to 900 m/s, then the 1st stage seperates, and the guided section (mass 18.5kg) is guided by the Tunguska's fire control system to the target by means of radio commands, and the missile's position is determined by the fire control system through a tracer at the end of the "guided stage" (or 2nd stage if you like). The missile is designed this way (to coast on inertia) to allow for a small missile, and to negate problems in firing multiple missiles due to rocket motor smoke trails. If the target is at a long range from the launcher (I beleive 7.5km or more) then the missile is launched ballistically to give the second stage a longer flight time (at it doesn't have a sustainer of any kind). Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellonet Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 The missile is accelerated in 2.6 seconds up to 900 m/sWhich would make the average speed 450 m/s in 2.6 s = 450*2.6=1170 m with propulsion. That means that the missile would, in most cases, travel the easily longest part of its journey unpowered, i.e. ballistic. i7-2600k@4GHz, 8GB, R9 280X 3GB, SSD, HOTAS WH, Pro Flight Combat Pedals, TIR5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huhn Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 ...You really think I just made up that the missile itselself has no active propulsion? ... No, i don't think so. But the acceleration time should be a hundreth or less of its overall flighttime and not a fifth or someting like that. so the ballistic behavior is negligible. and as it is a guided system the ballistic is much more negligible. the target won't fly a straight line so the missiles flightpath differs from a simple trajectory parabola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
169th_Bat Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 Dunno mate "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few". - Sir Winston Churchill 1940. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-GOYA Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 ballistic adj : relating to or characteristic of the motion of objects moving under their own momentum and the force of gravity If you look at this definition from a strict point of view, if a missle uses any sort of guidance, it's not ballistic. I think some problems are arising in this thread because of different ideas of what ballistic means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Well, until someone comes out with a better A-10 sim that will run on my system. I'll keep LOMAC... I'm sure it'll be on my system for a long time to come. AFM sure would be nice. Santa, please? Arizona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts