it’s the physics engine’s problem
but the missile, is gaijin’s tracking code
Looks like PL-8B and other drop tank pylon configurations have been mentioned in the most recent dev report
With the mighty J-10A arriving, many of you requested that we consider the PL-8B missile for this aircraft. We didn’t give the aircraft this missile as it may be a bit of a strong combination given the missile’s potential performance in conjunction with the platform, so PL-5E II was a more logical and balanced starting point. It may be given further consideration depending also on how the J-10A is performing in the current meta. At this time however we can’t say for sure it will come to the game at any point soon, just to be clear. We just wanted to keep you updated that we are indeed aware of the missile and are looking into it.
Staying on the subject of the J-10, its drop tanks were also a point raised, as the current wing tanks occupy a missile pylon. The developers are indeed aware of this and we do have alternative tanks in the pipeline. So work is indeed underway.
Still no mention of the acknowledged reports for the following additional features though:
- Guided bombs on inner pylons (additional report here)
- GB1000
- Additional radar modes
- Centerline double bomb rack
- CM-704KG ATGM
- C-701T/KD ATGM
- RWR change to the correct model
- PL-11 SARH Missiles
These are ONLY acknowledged reports that I could find regarding adding additional features the J-10A (not including acknowledged modeling error reports such as pilot position, intake modeling, etc), there’s definitely other reports that haven’t been acknowledged yet which are very valid to the aircraft.
I’m hoping that they fix most of these by the next major update around the end of October/beginning of November, it is silly that the update’s titular vehicle is still half-baked.
2 Likes
Pl8b’s aren’t even better than pl5e2’s. They have less range and are smokier. Pretty bullshit reason to not add them. Excited to get an underbelly drop tank though.
What are you talking about?
The PL-8B has considerably more range and acceleration than PL-5EII.
The pl5’s can glide, the pl8’s can’t.
The PL-8 has more range than the PL-5EII, period. The PL-5EII has 3 seconds more guidance time (23s vs 20s), and launching short range IR missiles at ranges where you hope they can glide into a target is a fools errand to begin with. It’s a total waste of ordnance.
The correct usage of the PL-5 or PL-8 is to launch them at an enemy from side or rear aspect at such a range that the IRCCM type (FoV reduction) would function correctly and prevent it from being decoyed by flares. The PL-8 is more optimal for this, as the sudden acceleration gives the enemy less than 1/3 the amount of time depending on distance to react - and makes it considerably harder to flare a lot sooner as the distance is closed and the FoV technique for flare resistance is more efficient.
Long story short; You’re wrong. The PL-5EII has some notable advantages, like maneuverability at low speeds and off the rail. Similar to R-27R vs R-27ER for dogfighting, the slower acceleration allows it to hit targets closer and at higher off-bore angles than the PL-8… but that’s about it.
1 Like
I think you’re misremembering, the pl5 accelerates quite a lot faster than the pl8.
No,
Looking at the raw numbers, you may not see that the PL-5 reaches top speed first, yes, but the PL-8 sustains it for longer and has higher overall deltaV. The additional ~100 m/s deltaV and ~1s burn time give it a time to target advantage near the limit of its’ usefulness.