I think we should try and find out what is wrong with PL-12 first.
2 Likes
2-3 of the others think it’s a good idea. I think there’s no point in not trying. They’ve been collecting a number of secondary “sources” (paper written by students who just want to pas the class). It likely won’t work but would be a decent buff if it did.
this is what I said about “proved to be a concept”. It says enlarge the booster which doesn’t seen in PL-8B.
I think their goal is to make it so ambiguous that the devs can’t tell what’s real or not and just add it. I admire their hopefulness although I have a strong feeling it’ll be shot down before it ever reaches the devs.
they already know that is a concept, and I think it’s not good to “make it so ambiguous”, honesty is the basic rule of making reports, at least for us.
I try to keep it honest, which is why I am only helping them find their papers but will not be submitting the report or adding my name to it.
To their credit the Yak-141 is a “concept”, so it’s not entirely unprecedented.
not similar. The paper is about a PL-8 version that not exist and designed by a student hemself, YAK-141 is unfinished official project.
For YAK-141’s example, I think it’s ultimate J-8PP with F404 and AIM-7M
It may be, but you have to admire their dedication to it. I’m hoping they find more sources that mention the seeker.
2nd try on that should be out by mid-late afternoon today
Thank you, I’ll have the report in soon
It did the weird thing where it deleted itself midway through writing so I had to re-write it. But it’s done.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ESoyltXevHSx
the python 3/pl8 design was always bad imo. Its practically the weight and size of an amraam with the performance of a sidewinder. Absolutely terrible mass to performance ratio. How can the delta v suck so bad when its so massive. Like did china really just slap irccm on this awful missile and call it a day?
This is better than instant “not a bug”, if anyone has any sources related to the PL-8B’s seeker in any way please share. Thank you.
1 Like
Nevermind, they just don’t want us to win. They closed the issue so I couldn’t even reply with more information when I find some.
The papers came from military technical institutes and a biography of the designer of the missile. They are practically begging for us to leak classified documents.
As a side note, I want the bug reporting managers to tell me what other all aspect infrared missile China bought from a foreign power and upgraded with a multi-element seeker. “Unnamed missile” is a pitiful excuse.
5 Likes
Issue is they never accepted that this article represents PL8B, this is no more than a ‘master’s experiment’ and we have no proof that any of this is applied to PL-8B. The issue of your issue is that you must assume the 4 element mentioned in article = PL8B 4 element, so pretty hard to get them to accept. Although at this point I don’t think anything will convince them.
The section talks of multi-element being applied to the PL-8 to make the PL-8B, the rest of the paper goes on to describe this multi-element.
If it was not the PL-8B’s multi-element that would be equivalent to an architecture student opening his paper with a bridge and talking about roofs later.
1 Like
Still, it is not PL8B, the name is not mentioned anywhere, I get that this is PL8B for sure, but they can deny that.
I have compiled the materials at hand and create one.
Incorrect IRCCM Mechanism Implementation for PL-8B // Gaijin.net // Issues
5 Likes
Best of luck, it is a very well written report. Much better than mine.
1 Like
Congrats on the accepted label
1 Like