1 hour ago, avarshina said:
Wikipedia has this:
strike bomber:
You mixed that up. Tu-22M is heavy bomber, Su-27 is an air superiority fighter. Kh-15 weights about 1200kg each and it’s a air-ballistic missile. Su-27 - I just provided this as a name of the family - not specific plane  , but payload is ~6000kg IIRC. So yeah - similar amount of armaments, but different weight class of them.
10 minutes ago, OwnageMaster said:
You mixed that up. Tu-22M is heavy bomber, Su-27 is an air superiority fighter. Kh-15 weights about 1200kg each and it’s a air-ballistic missile. Su-27 - I just provided this as a name of the family - not specific plane  , but payload is ~6000kg IIRC. So yeah - similar amount of armaments, but different weight class of them.
We can debate this long…
But intys are like small fighters and frigates are like big B 52 bombers.
I think B 52 or any other really big bomber can easy load 100x more then small figher plane.
30 minutes ago, GatoGrande said:
We can debate this long…
But intys are like small fighters and frigates are like big B 52 bombers.
I think B 52 or any other really big bomber can easy load 100x more then small figher plane.
That’s what we just established - nope. You cannot put AMRAAMs on B-52.
this ignorant discussion is EXACTLY why the Dev’s NEVER read the forum …   … COME ON PEOPLE !!!
2 minutes ago, Original_Taz said:
this ignorant discussion is EXACTLY why the Dev’s NEVER read the forum …   … COME ON PEOPLE !!!
Basically we are trying to establish if the current model is fine or not. This is the discussion thread - so everyone can chime in. If the consensus will be that it needs to be reworked, probably a suggestion thread will be created.
1 hour ago, OwnageMaster said:
It’s not a 100%. Smaller missiles usually are making damage, but their theoretical Pk (Probability of kill) is ~30%. If we are talking about very small missiles vs twin-engine fighters - they usually survive a single hit. Even one F15 did survive AIM-9 hit in dogfight (fired by accident). However historical data is pretty brutal:
AIM-120 AMRAAM - in Yugoslavia against MiG-29s in poor condition - Pk 38%.
AIM-7M - in Iraq - Pk 27%
AIM-9 launched from F-16 - Iraq - funny story - 36 launches, 0 kills, most misses, not a single confirmed kill
US Navy F-14s and F-18s fired 21 AIM-7s for one kill (Pk 4,8%), and 38 AIM-9s for two kills (Pk 5,3%). That’s 59 launches for 3 kills.
Don’t believe me? Google it.
so your saying that if one of those missiles actually hit the plane it wouldn’t go down ??? we are not talking about accuracy here were talking about the ability of ANY plane to withstand a SINGLE direct missile hit …  … whether or not the pilot ejected is not the question its whether the plane will go down and THUS be removed from the dogfight … LINK YOUR GOOGLE STATS PLEASE !!!
Just a few examples:
Su-25:
Spoiler
In 1958, a Chinese MiG-17 took an AIM-9 Sidewinder in the can and dragged it back for Soviet scientists to dissect, re-engineer, and deploy shortly thereafter.
Mentioned earlier F-15 hit by AIM-9 Sidewinder:
So in general - if a fighter was hit by a small missile and had any armour at the right places - it can survive. With expanding rod warheads of the medium size missiles with close proximity detonation - not so much. Heavy missile direct hit, Pk is close to 100%.
For the rest of data - Google is your friend. With that subject closed, what is your opinion on current missile system in the game?
1 hour ago, OwnageMaster said:
Just a few examples:
Su-25:
so even your video show the plane was removed from the fight … didn’t die but was no longer in the match after one small missile hit…
2 hours ago, OwnageMaster said:
Just a few examples:
Su-25:
In 1958, a Chinese MiG-17 took an AIM-9 Sidewinder in the can and dragged it back for Soviet scientists to dissect, re-engineer, and deploy shortly thereafter.
Mentioned earlier F-15 hit by AIM-9 Sidewinder:
So in general - if a fighter was hit by a small missile and had any armour at the right places - it can survive. With expanding rod warheads of the medium size missiles with close proximity detonation - not so much. Heavy missile direct hit, Pk is close to 100%.
For the rest of data - Google is your friend. With that subject closed, what is your opinion on current missile system in the game?
…
In 1958, a Chinese MiG-17 took an AIM-9 Sidewinder in the can and dragged it back for Soviet scientists to dissect, re-engineer, and deploy shortly thereafter. Of course, it didn’t detonate.
No. If the missile is not defeated by counter measures and maneuvering, and if it performs as advertised, a typical fighter will not usually survive. The Pk [edit: Probability of kill] in such an instance is extremely high with a direct hit or close proximity detonation.
dude . your leaving things out of your google report … the bottom line is , that if you hit the target it is killed or removed from the fight … and in star conflict the guided missiles almost always hit … the unreal part is that they NEVER kill unless they are a AI shooting at you .
12 hours ago, OwnageMaster said:
And again - 2 year old kid behaviour. This game is build around explosive damage scaling premise from the start. Not to mention - in the real world space battles wouldn’t be done in space of few km^3, but rather a little larger, and everything you would see is a blip on your radar screen. And since it’s not a real world, not even real world simulator, let me put my science hat on and explain to you why does it work that way.
- all ships have shields. Always. Even when you hear shields down you have at least 1 point of shields in next half a second
- missile warheads have radial detonation pattern (it’s a sphere - we don’t have explosive formed penetrators modelled or cumulative streams)
- missiles are detonating with the shield contact
- shields are roughly spherical
- as it is vacuum, explosion particles are the main damaging factor (there is no atmosphere to conduct shockwave, all matter comes from the missile)
- from the above it means that the force the ship is subject to is proportional to the size of the ship (bigger shield - bigger area that will absorb the explosion energy in form of EM radiation and particles)
- which is EXACTLY what is modelled into this game. (If it is not clear, I can make a picture for you)
Your premise of doing the very same damage to any ship size would be correct for non-explosive ordnance - and it is perfectly modelled here as well.
And I fully agree that calculating intersecting area for each ship would be a nonsense, hence we have only 4 values - 1 for each class.
Which basically makes your post moot. DEAL WITH IT!!!
what is your science lv in the school?
11 hours ago, TheDarkRedFox said:
I’d love a missile slot laser
it will be too op…
I think a missile slot ammo rework will only do slight changes in stats, not because of logic but because of probably op concerns
6 hours ago, Original_Taz said:
…
In 1958, a Chinese MiG-17 took an AIM-9 Sidewinder in the can and dragged it back for Soviet scientists to dissect, re-engineer, and deploy shortly thereafter. Of course, it didn’t detonate.
No. If the missile is not defeated by counter measures and maneuvering, and if it performs as advertised, a typical fighter will not usually survive. The Pk [edit: Probability of kill] in such an instance is extremely high with a direct hit or close proximity detonation.
dude . your leaving things out of your google report … the bottom line is , that if you hit the target it is killed or removed from the fight … and in star conflict the guided missiles almost always hit … the unreal part is that they NEVER kill unless they are a AI shooting at you .
Next time - read what I wrote, please.
8 hours ago, OwnageMaster said:
So in general - if a fighter was hit by a small missile and had any armour at the right places - it can survive. With expanding rod warheads of the medium size missiles with close proximity detonation - not so much. Heavy missile direct hit, Pk is close to 100%.
In the case of that F15 - AIM-9 Sidewinder performed as expected detonating at the correct place at correct time and the plane still survived. AIM-9 Sidewinder belongs to class of normal (or medium in game) size missiles. However there are a lot of reports regarding Su-25/A-10s hit by small missile warheads (FIM-92, SA-18 etc etc), finishing it’s mission and flying home.
Yes, I know that the case of MiG-17 didn’t involve warhead detonation, however it was a direct hit by Mach-2.5, 85kg projectile.
Also - I am not “leaving things out” - I actually gave you the whole sentence that you could copy paste into Google that will direct you to that quora thread. I am glad you could find it, however you disappointed me with stopping reading at that MiG example. If you could keep reading that F-15 example and photo is a little further down as well as testimony of an actual A-10 pilot regarding it’s survivability against small missiles (MANPADS class - which would be equivalent of “small missiles” in game). So if you are not willing to do even a “scroll down” not to mention your own research, we don’t have a common ground to discuss it further. So let’s drop it and go back to the game world.
6 hours ago, Original_Taz said:
…
in star conflict the guided missiles almost always hit … the unreal part is that they NEVER kill unless they are a AI shooting at you .
Almost always hit - if you are standing still. You can dodge cruise missile in a guard. Again - do your research first - ask a friend to the custom game, make some experiments or even sit down with calculator and do the math. Stop throwing random statements involving NEVER and ALWAYS - they are simply not true. Also - in SC we have something called “shields” - of course it’s unrealistic. Same as implemented non-Newtonian steering with simulation of air resistance by verniers and so on.
I agree with people that say, when real fighter plain is hit by missile it is going down.
Other thing is that fighter plain have almost unlimited IR flairs that don’t need 14 sec reload time like we do here in game.
Of course we have game here devs made it like they see this.
When playing some other games I noticed that there is limited number of missile that can be used per one fight.
We have here some kind of unlimited missile load with cool down in between.
This is normal for this game since player that dies can re spawn.
Perhaps perfect solution would be to have back PvP mode Capture Becons.
Since players can’t re spawn in same ship it would be ok to have limited number of missiles and IR flairs.
Ps; I’m just asking myself here, from where do we get missiles in this game when we have used them?
They are magically made in our ships by devs-dwarf mechanic. 
4 hours ago, OwnageMaster said:
…
Almost always hit - if you are standing still. You can dodge cruise missile in a guard. Again - do your research first - ask a friend to the custom game, make some experiments or even sit down with calculator and do the math. Stop throwing random statements involving NEVER and ALWAYS - they are simply not true. Also - in SC we have something called “shields” - of course it’s unrealistic. Same as implemented non-Newtonian steering with simulation of air resistance by verniers and so on.
That’s true. But you mentioned a point, that one can dodge missiles in SC - some types more easy than other types. And sadly the ship classes have limited tactical choice of missiles in this regard:
▲ Interceptor ships can choose between 20 - 120 deg/s maneuvering missiles;
◆ Fighter class ships can choose between 20 - 100 deg/s maneuvering missiles;
■ Frigate class ships can choose between 20 - 35 deg/s maneuvering missiles.
Synopsis of typical homing missiles per ship-class
▲ ◆ ■ : All ship classes
#----------------
Name Doomsday missile 17
Type Guided missile (heavy)
Ship type ▲ ◆ ■ all ship classes
Flight speed 621 m/s
Maneuvering speed 20 deg/s
Sum DPS: 236 dmg/s
▲ Interceptor
#----------------
Name Small missiles 17
Type Homing missile
Ship type ▲ interceptor
Flight speed 1380 m/s
Maneuvering speed 120 deg/s
Sum DPS: 109 dmg/s
◆ Fighter
#----------------
Name EM missiles 17
Type Homing missile
Ship type ◆ fighter
Flight speed 966 m/s
Maneuvering speed 100 deg/s
Sum DPS: 140 dmg/s
Name Piercing missiles 17
Type Homing missile
Ship type ◆ fighter
Flight speed 1461 m/s
Maneuvering speed 50 deg/s
Sum DPS: 140 dmg/
Name Ion-beam warhead missiles 17
Type Homing missile
Ship type ◆ fighter:command
Flight speed 966 m/s
Maneuvering speed 50 deg/s
Sum DPS: 73 dmg/
■ Frigate
#----------------
Name Cruise missile 17
Type Homing missile
Ship type ■ frigate
Flight speed 621 m/s
Maneuvering speed 30 deg/s
Sum DPS: 208 dmg/s
Name Octopus 17
Type Homing missile (volley)
Ship type ■ frigate
Flight speed 1461 m/s
Maneuvering speed 35 deg/s
Sum DPS: 170 dmg/s
4 hours ago, Original_Taz said:
in the real world a single missile destroys a fighter plane …
of course, you will probably shoot down a plane with a missile, if you hit it directly. but that does not really answer the question, whether that same missile will do more havoc on a larger mass. which it will. and your assumption is, it will do the same amount of damage. which is physically not correct, not even for real world explosions.
you want to say, a missile should do the same amount of damage overall, which it does. a smaller target just receives a smaller portion of it.
explosions dissipate from a point of origin in some pattern. usually you try not to make spherical explosions in weaponry, because that means, you waste a lot of energy in directions where there is nothing to hit. the inverse square law of dissipation is exactly present, because the further away from the point of origin the explosions’ horizon gets, the more the energy gets stretched across space. this is true, no matter if we talk about shockwaves - which is actually the larger damaging factor of any explosive - or shrapnel / particles.
the total amount of freed energy will still stay the same.
the larger target will absorb more force. but even if the smaller interceptor gets less damage from a torpedo, it will still be more deadly for it, than for a frigate, because it has less amount of hitpoints. so where exactly is the problem?
and whether a plane gets shot down, does not completely rely on the damage done in total, but which part is damaged.
also planes are not heavily armored, larger planes do not survive a missile impact more likely than a smaller one.
so this comparison is quite off, and the ongoing talk is more about hit ratio, less about the impact of explosions.
if you would detonate the same explosive inside a ship, then your assumptions would be correct. but only then.
btw. the exact same reason why a larger mass would absorb more of the damage is the reason, we do not coat a radiactive leak with thin layers of paper. you want the particles to hit something, so you use large thick dense matter. same principle, just the other way around.
15 hours ago, Original_Taz said:
your mind is broken from so much time spent in online games you’ve lost track of reality
this is a completely baseless insult, i happen to research a lot of real physics and concepts, exactly because i try to write truthful.
15 minutes ago, g4borg said:
the larger target will absorb more force. but even if the smaller interceptor gets less damage from a torpedo, it will still be more deadly for it, than for a frigate, because it has less amount of hitpoints. so where exactly is the problem?
I see little problem here,
if misslile can do max 10k demage to something it can’t do more.
So 60k survivability from frigate should be able to survive 5 impacts when it is not healed.
4k-8k recon should die.
What more force should larger object absorbe if there is just 10k? How can you get +25% or +100% how?
If you invent that you put 10k energy in something and you get out 12.5k or even 20k energy you will be very rich man.
Not to mention that you will solve all problems with energy for ever.
18 minutes ago, SunnySweet said:
What more force should larger object absorbe if there is just 10k? How can you get +25% or +100% how?
that assumes, that the damage the weapon does in points is its absolute maximum force
which it isnt, since any target in the explosion radius gets hit with this amount of damage which is displayed on the missile.
you could bring the same argument about why it does splash damage then, since if it hits two targets, the damage suddenly duplicates.
its not “more damage”, but the given information is on the baseline of fighters, which get 1.0x damage, and already contains the information as “directional damage”, not the missiles “yield”.
it’s a game, and not an exact simulation.
i was only talking about the abstract idea, why an explosion will do larger amounts of damage on larger targets, and why it is justified to simulate that with “size multiplyers”
some games have way more sophisticated explosion simulations. point is, it’s not unrealistic to do so.
9 minutes ago, g4borg said:
its note “more damage”, but the given information is on the baseline of fighters, which get 1.0x damage.
I think you make all people here tired with your explanation.
So fighters get 100% damage from 10k direct hit missile and next same typ missile fired from same ship makes 125% damage to frigate from 10k base points damage??
80% of missiles here are impact on target. And again if missile have 10k damage…meh I believe all my effort to explain this to you will hit thick wall in your …
don’t forget to take ships resistance in consideration 
just to make ppl even more confused
1 hour ago, g4borg said:
… i happen to research a lot of real physics and concepts, exactly because i try to write truthful.
As I understand, g4borg is a games developer/coder himself.
34 minutes ago, g4borg said:
… its not “more damage”, but the given information is on the baseline of fighters, which get 1.0x damage …
Here stems the confusion from: the 1.0 factor in regard to fighters and missile damage is due to the game’s history, first there were the fighter class, then came interceptors and then frigates, after that -much later-destroyers (isn’t it so, please correct me if i am wrong).
To give damage stats for missiles it should be absolute, that is total destructive capacity. From this value, one can abstract: destroyer absorbs all, frigates, three quarters, figters half, interceptors one third… but unfortunately the stats are based on fighters with a standard 1.0 factor due to the game’s historical development.