unfortunately its not even a secondary source
to be fair you literally cant find actual sources for things gaijin makes educated guesses on 90% of things that aren’t declassified
AIM-120 C5s specs are all hyper classified still same with any new radar
Which is an ignorant statement because F1 cars don’t use pump octane petrol.
You’re just making things up lol
Yup that’s the unfortunate part
I often have AIM7-P which performs better than the 120C.
and for the people that cries its a DCS manual…
The game DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) derives its information and realism from extensive research, work with real pilots and military advisors, aircraft and system technical data and manuals, and close collaboration with manufacturers (OEMs) to recreate aircraft systems, cockpits, and flight dynamics as authentically as possible. The community also plays a significant role in bug fixing and development suggestions.
Where the developers obtain their information:
Original aircraft manuals: Detailed manuals are studied for each aircraft to accurately simulate all switches, buttons, and systems.
Military experts: The developers work with real pilots, maintenance personnel, and military advisors to understand procedures and tactics.
Manufacturer collaborations (OEMs): For some modules, there is direct collaboration with aircraft manufacturers (e.g., Boeing for the C-130J) to gain access to precise data.
Technical data and blueprint data: Detailed technical drawings and specifications are used for the accurate replication of cockpits and systems.
Community feedback: The dedicated player base provides valuable insights, reports bugs, and drives the development of new features, thus increasing accuracy.
In summary: DCS is a highly sophisticated simulation that achieves an extremely high level of detail by combining real-world data, expert knowledge, and continuous feedback to deliver the feel of a true flight simulator.
It’s no coincidence that DCS is considerably more accurate and is used by real pilots for training; for that reason alone, it could be considered a valid source. In comparison to DCS, WT is more on par with World of Planes.
PS: its translatet via google translate from german into english
Even if the DCS modeling and information is accurate you still need to find the sources that they used for their changes and then provide those sources to Gaijin. You can’t use DCS as a source.
The document isn’t even from DCS, it’s a group of players that made their own simulations and calculations on how they think the missile should behave and tries to argue that DCS should change so that the missile behaves like those players have calculated.
Gaijin does not accept player made calculations for reports and does not accept third party sources even if those third party sources are using secondary sources. In those cases you need to find the secondary sources that the third party used and then use those secondary sources in your report.
In short: if to many steps of information transfer has happened it becomes a “game of telephone” (the game where children whisper a word to each other in a circle and the word ends up completely different at the end) and the information can often end up wrong, so you have to trace it back as close to the original source of information as you possibly can (without it becoming classified) before giving that source to Gaijin. If that source is a third party it wont be accepted.
It’s a tertiary source at best
It was a quick analogy to show that using the same / similar fuel in no way means two engines (rocket motor or otherwise) have the same, or even a similar, amount of thrust.
But sure if you want to argue technicalities we can do that. I’m not sure why though, because it won’t make your original statement any less incorrect…
Here’s a few ‘fixed’ statements for you, take your pick:
Saying that two missiles have the same thrust because they use the same propellant is like saying a Smart Car and a Ford Focus RS will produce the same amount of horsepower if you put the same petrol in them.
Saying that two missiles have the same thrust because they use the same propellant is like saying a Canberra B.2 and a Lightning F.6 produce the same thrust because they both use Avtur (JP-1) fuel.
Saying that two missiles have the same thrust because they use the same propellant is like saying a Saturn I and Saturn V rocket produce the same thrust because they both use RP-1 / LOX fuel.
Happy now?
With all engines there are many, many, factors which impact performance besides the fuel they use, so you cannot state that that two rocket engines using the same fuel means they produce the same thrust.
Where is BugReport?
Okay, so to sum it up: if you want to have a chance as a Western player, you’re simply out of luck. We have to accept that a Russian document is enough for the 77, which only lists theoretical values for milliseconds. But a justified buff for something Western simply can’t be substantiated.
It doesn’t matter if, according to statistics, more than 50% of players since patch 13.3 are flying SU-27s, SU-30s, and J-11s. There are only seven nations, and one has more than half of all players… and almost as many kills as all the others combined.
but the statistic is from statshark also player made, means it has no value
I’ve been playing this game since the beta, and I’m getting so fed up with it that I’d rather play Ace Combat…
No… You just have to use better sources and be good at evaluating sources (this goes for any sort of research at all).
The language doesn’t matter. It’s just that a lot of those documents are from official sources or are straight up from the vehicle/munition manuals.
And then that is likely how they are implemented into the game, I don’t think there is any missile in the game at all that can continuously pull the numbers listed in the stat cards. The numbers listed are theoretical max numbers and the actual values that happen in matches depend on speed, altitude, AoA, drag, etc.
What sources uses Gaijin when modeling a missile? Sekrit?
2 Likes
Seems like it
THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL SOURCES FOR NON OF THEM , not even for the R77. It’s a patent, and a patent doesn’t tell you what it can do, but what it might be able to do. And РАКЕТА. Российский патент 1997 года RU 2085826 C1. Изобретение по МКП F42B15/00 . isn’t an official site either, its a third-party site.
thats gajins sources, magic and imagination.
1.third party sources are ok if they damage point 2
2.third party sources are not ok if they damage point 1
1 Like
It doesn’t have to be Official, just NOT third party. I think you’re confusing secondary sources with third party. They are not the same.
That can be a second hand source or even an official primary source depending on who filed the patent.
That contains second hand sources.
Ah, if a third-party site publishes “second-hand” facts where it’s not possible to trace their exact origin, then it’s OK.
Auf gut deutsch; verarschen kann ich mich selbst
It is still only a selective selection of facts that only benefits those for whom it is intended to benefit.
and it is common knowledge and an open secret
And in my opinion, game masters and other staff members should take player dissatisfaction seriously and forward the problems, not dismiss them as unimportant, ridiculous, etc. Even if official data is lacking, it’s a fact that the current state is a major disadvantage for 50% of players and is unbalanced.
and there are 100 of threads about it
There are already some problems getting the Aim 120c to Mach 4, but an R-77-1 can reach Mach 5 without any problems under the same launch conditions.
However, I find some of Gaijin’s logic rather questionable, for example with the DIRCM of the Mi-28NM. It is physically impossible for this DIRCM block to cover 360°, but Gaijin says that this is not the case. So I wonder, what is their source for claiming that this laser can see through all materials? This shows that Russian weapon technology is better than it actually is. Or the R-27ER/ET, which has a maximum speed of Mach 5.8 ingame, but in all the documents you can find, Mach 4.5 is listed as the maximum speed.
Regardless, this will not change, as others and I have already given up hope :/
Not quite correct but almost, the third part website can contain secondary sources, but not secondary information. If the third party only contains the information then the source is also third party. If the third party contains the secondary source then you have access to the secondary source.
So for example if a third party blog made by a random guy that writes facts about a missile then that cannot be used. But if that same exact blog and random guy posts a secondary source document so that you can open and read that secondary source then that is okay.
This is website a great example of this: ( https://tanks.mod16.org/ )
It’s a third party site made by a random guy, what he writes on the website we cannot use. BUT he uploads all the historical documents he writes about so that we are able to download those documents and use as primary or secondary sources for reports.
So for the S-tank (Strv 103) information the blog looks like this: ( s-tank – Swedish tank archives )
That page alone cannot be used, but towards the bottom he links to the source document:
That document when opened looks like this:
THAT document can then be used as a primary source for reporting (because it’s directly from the Swedish defence forces material administration).
So even if it’s the exact same information in the document and in the blog, only the document will be able to be used for reporting and not the blog.
I hope i have explained it well enough to be understood now.