3 ms·
> targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a se
by Tuna-Fish 11y ago
> targeting hasn't improved as much as you think (hell, 1920s mechanical computers have about as much accuracy as a modern day cpu, so you can tick more in a second, so what?)
The primary advances are the ability to distinguish signals returned by chaff/flares from the real aircraft, and to have a model of the target aircaft's capabilities, so that on each targeting step the missile simulates the most extreme maneuvering it's capable in all directions, aiming the missile so that it is capable of keeping it's seeker on it and following regardless of how the plane flies. That's something that a higher tick rate is quite useful for.
- ObviousScience 11y ago(I'm agreeing with the parent post, just elaborating.) Also, much like the weather, sometimes you can only make accurate predictions if you make a small prediction and correct it once you get feedback. Much like you can get insanely high correlations on your predictions about the weather if you never predict more than 15 minutes out, the problem of predicting the other plane's response only become tractable when you can predict and correct over very short windows. The higher clock rate doesn't just do more of the same faster, but rather, enable a sort of "phase shift", where the speed enables a new form of computation to work in a meaningful way.
- emp_zealoth 11y agoDoesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner?
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Doesn't that imply that anti-missile missiles are just around the corner? Anti-missile missiles already exist (missiles designed to intercept air-to-air missiles are still a ways off.)