安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题









- hybridnav basically combines both the pronav and whipnav solutions
- quadratic intercept computes an intercept point and steers towards it. It is very fuel efficient vs non accelerating targets, but not great against maneuvering ones.
Currently no terrain awareness is built into the script, I'd need to add that.
As for guidance modes:
- pronav (aka Promotional navigation) seeks to minimize the rate of change of the missile LOS vector to the target. This guidance method is/was used for air to air missiles. Wikipedia does a decent job explaining the basics, there are many books and articles that can dice deeper into the formulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation
- whipnav is a similar guidance formulation of my own design that instead seeks to minimize the perpendicular relative velocity of the target. The understanding is if your target has no perpendicular velocity, you will intercept. In practice it is a much more aggressive guidance method and, as such, is prone to overshoot against evasive targets
Currently they go high up then drop to the desired altitude and spin around doing nothing
Remote fire communicates directly to the missiles themselves.