R-73 performance in game
-
Wikipedia is not irrelevant…
Its just not a source. It is a source for sources. The same is true of every encyclopedia ever.
-
Wikipedia is not irrelevant…
Its just not a source. It is a source for sources. The same is true of every encyclopedia ever.
Nope - other encyclopaedias have decidedly better quality control and authors that know what they are talking about.
-
You are mistaken on the quality control sir. Wikipedia has less errors per article than World Book Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia Britannica.
In fact its a main focus for Wikipedia, precisely because of the fact that anyone can edit it. Other encyclopedias tend to take for granted that their authors know what they are talking about, and thus have less rigorous checking of articles.
-
According to who? - who has gone through every page to determine this statistic? Is it humanly possible to go through every Wiki page and is the expertise and time actually available?
Have never seen anything as bad as Wikipedia - some pages are terrible - no citations bad formatting and if you know about the subject the content is often laughable - that’s before you get on to the lack of references.
I actually have a quite a few pages I set up probably 8 years ago - but I haven’t even looked at them for about 4 years - I don’t get any notification when someone decides to change them.
Anyone can and does edit the article - have seen it so many times - they clearly have not got the required number of staff to control the content and even then they don’t have people who are experts in every subject in human history.
There are some good articles - but here is the point the majority of people take the information at face value regardless (they dont check the sources)- but it is open to and is abused by all manner of people for whatever reason.
-
…. anyone can edit the page and put any rubbish on there. …
This is no where near as true as it was ?3 …. ?5 years ago when Wiki got hammered for severely lacking in source references, editorial control, etc. As a matter of fact, initially, they swung so far the other way that being able to edit an article without review/removal of edit became so difficult it was practically crippling. As I understand it, it is still difficult.
That said … always best to check the references/sources and be appropriately skeptical of factual statements without good sources.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Theres more than a couple citations at the bottom of that article if you would like to check that.
If you are not getting notifications of edits to pages you’ve edited this is an error in your settings. By default you are notified by email when someone edits a page you have authored or edited.
As far as staff - there are only about 60 paid staff members for Wikipedia. Given the size of the content I think its safe to say that those staff cannot collectively have viewed every article personally, no.
The way people use a resource is completely disconnected from the intrinsic value of that resource. If I give you a gun and you dont teach yourself to shoot, is it the guns fault for not hitting anything?
This is no where near as true as it was ?3 …. ?5 years ago when Wiki got hammered for severely lacking in source references, editorial control, etc. As a matter of fact, initially, they swung so far the other way that being able to edit an article without review/removal of edit became so difficult it was practically crippling. As I understand it, it is still difficult.
That said … always best to check the references/sources and be appropriately skeptical of factual statements without good sources.
If you make an edit, the article is flagged for review. Most articles are reviewed within a week of being flagged. If you make an edit without being logged it, a bot reviews the edit immediately looking to see if the edit is ‘vandalism’. There is a much more rigorous system in place than for any other encyclopedia.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Theres more than a couple citations at the bottom of that article if you would like to check that.
If you are not getting notifications of edits to pages you’ve edited this is an error in your settings. By default you are notified by email when someone edits a page you have authored or edited.
As far as staff - there are only about 60 paid staff members for Wikipedia. Given the size of the content I think its safe to say that those staff cannot collectively have viewed every article personally, no.
The way people use a resource is completely disconnected from the intrinsic value of that resource. If I give you a gun and you dont teach yourself to shoot, is it the guns fault for not hitting anything?
Yep case closed
-
By dismissing an article on wikipedia as being unreliable due to self interest, you are doing what you claim to see as such a bad thing in others - taking wikipedia at face value without relying on the sources.
One of those sources is a study published in Nature. Reasonably well peer reviewed, I believe that one has such a reputation for.
-
By dismissing an article on wikipedia as being unreliable due to self interest, you are doing what you claim to see as such a bad thing in others - taking wikipedia at face value without relying on the sources.
One of those sources is a study published in Nature. Reasonably well peer reviewed, I believe that one has such a reputation for.
Who says I’m dismissing anything?
-
Perhaps I malign you - perhaps I am seeing sarcasm where none exists. Perhaps instead there is a refreshingly innocent decision to accept the world at face value.
If that is the case, you have my sincerest apologies.
-
Okay……
Yes Wiki has tried to make improvements…though it appears to be an impossible task with the resource available. I will admit I haven’t tried editing pages myself for years so if things are better there then we just need to go through every page and correct them.
The point I was making re my articles…I don’t care about them…how many other original authors change email address, or don’t change settings or just ignore the emails until the end of time.
It is a not a case of people not teaching themselves…you will find people don’t even consider this without being taught…typically over here people are generally not taught to question information as part of basic education ( Not in my time anyway) …no one would look at the media if that was the case…
-
All of the sources I listed (including WiKi) seem to be saying the same thing. With the DOTE and BGA sources, along with WiKi, seem to be on the same page. That was my point. Take it for what it is. It is consistent. Sources are relevant in each of the articles.
Since this thread is about the R-73, but has since been :tjacked: (and I am to blame for that) I should try to steer this back onto topic.
The R-73 (or any missile in FBMS) seems to have unusual characteristics. Since Crusader mentioned “modeled poorly” as this seems to be a topic we have discussed before. At this point, it is up to the devs to whether the missiles in FBMS will get attention or not. It is one of those issues that we all will just have to wait and see.
-
Almost imposible to tell from those photos - you want side on photos at the same angle and if you know the dimensions of the weapons bay or wingtip launchers that will give you a better idea.
I agree. The linked images did not show an verify to me anyting.
-
Not really
The motor is the same than a C-7, so kinematically, it wont be a game changer for most aircraft. The main improvements for range will certainly be an optimized flight profile, and a significant increase of battery time. I would guess that for a 50 000 ft, M1.5 launch like the F-22 can do, the main range limiter is not the kinematics, but rather battery/self destruct time.
Bottom line : with the F-22 it will definitely have more range, but with an F-16, probably not a lot more.
I think 100% same. It is a fairytale that you can get 50% larger DLZ generally just flight path optimalization while even previosuly had AIM-120 such optimalization for general TAC fighters. As an engieer I can judge this.
My bet also was on larger battery time because for such larger range even one case demands this. F-22 and target rel. alt difference is different what most TAC fighters have so a different AP course optimalization with longer battery time can do this. AIM-120 size missile likely have only about 90-120 sec internal power support. At low alt this is 100% good but in case burnout speed at 50k with M1.5 launch speed easily can higher a bit than M5.0 with smaller drag what AIM-54 had. So flight time of AIM-120 easly can be higher than 90-120 sec before start do climb down.
-
The R-73 (or any missile in FBMS) seems to have unusual characteristics. Since Crusader mentioned “modeled poorly” as this seems to be a topic we have discussed before. At this point, it is up to the devs to whether the missiles in FBMS will get attention or not. It is one of those issues that we all will just have to wait and see.
Well, its complicated.
First you have the issue that people who made the dat file didnt really know what to put in them. Typically, the “Missile Weight” field showing always total weight, when it should be empty weight. But you also have similar things with total impulse, guidance gains, etc. that you can correct.
Then there is the issue of modeling accurately a given RL missile. That is a handful to do : you somehow need to get a ton of aerodynamic, engine, guidance, battery data on said missile, which you almost never have except for very old missiles. If you have a rough idea of what to achieve in maneuverability/range, you can guesstimate, but it cant be 100% true to RL.
-
I watched the ACMI yesterday… Mig-29 launched it when MACH 0,35 IIRC…the missile speed was 460 km/h during the turn…that is why it was so tight imo
to AIM 120D … also 2-way datalink is new, so the pilot can selfdestruct the missile now (I guess)
It is not very practical to fight under the pack of burned out Amraams… -
I watched the ACMI yesterday… Mig-29 launched it when MACH 0,35 IIRC…the missile speed was 460 km/h during the turn…that is why it was so tight imo
I watched it too, I think it is the other way around : the missile speed is very low because of the insane AOA it is taking. And the turn is tight because most of the thrust is sideway.
You can have some overshoot in AOA but the limit for AA-11 is 35°, not 70° - a x2 overshoot is really crazy. No idea what happened here :shock:
-
but it cant be 100% true to RL.
… fortunately! BMS is a public software. I would be feared to have the 100% rl perfo!
-
Fortunately, it doesnt matter. No one can actually confirm how close to being 100% correct it is - and those who can, won’t (for good reasons). Trying to get as close as possible is no problem, so long as only public data is used.
Of course, I am no doubt preaching to the choir here.
-
Where is the 35° AOA limit from? (simulator?)
–-----------------------------
I did fast search. I like this czech site BTW, but there is no AOA
http://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-vyzbroj/protiletadlove-rs/r-73-aa-11-archer-/Control surfaces angular range - ±30º
R-73 (basic) considered Offboresight 40° (?)
MK-80 Majak-80 senzor wide angle 90°R-73M considered Offboresight 60°
MK-80M Majak-80M wide angle 120°in this discussion guy called “aerospacetech” posted some detailed info, but again no AOA:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/archive/index.php/t-28398.htmlComparison of thrust-vector control systems
Main technical parameters control vanes gimballed nozzle
Maximum side control power in each
channel, (as a percentage of the rocket
motor power output)
13-14% 13-14%
Maximum angle of control device
movement
17º 8.5º
Maximum hinge moment 4kgm 3kgm
Device weight (without actuators) 4kg 3.5kg
Dimensions (without actuators) length 150mm 210mm
diameter 165mm 165mm
Rocket motor output loss when thrust
is not vectored
5% 3%I watched more websites about LOAL, performance etc etc, but no AOA info….