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
That’s good news lol.
Also thank you for your effort.
1 Like
Could someone test the PL-12 at ranges past 10KM+? Apparently there are some problems with it after the update now, especially against targets flying perpendicular or something is off with the radar.
In my experience, there seems to be a discrepancy between my client and Gaijin’s servers. From my perspective, the PL-12 often exhibits erratic large-angle maneuvers yet still manages to hit the target, or it flies smoothly but loses lock inexplicably.
For some reason this problem seems to particularly common with the PL-12, I don’t notice it too much when using R-77 or AIM-120.
Would you mind explaining how does seeker shutoff work in the game and how does it compare to fov shrink? I assume the TY90 is this flare resistant in large part because it also has seeker shutoff?
After the seeker achieves initial lock, it continuously monitors its field of view (FOV). If interference (such as flares, sun, or rockets) is detected within the FOV, the seeker immediately suspends guidance signals, causing the missile to temporarily maneuver based on its last received trajectory data while the seeker continues scanning for a clean target signature. Once the interference exits the FOV, the seeker reacquires and relocks the target to resume guidance; however, if interference persists for over 3 seconds, the seeker permanently disengages the lock. This method maintains robust resistance across all engagement ranges, whereas the simpler “FOV shrink” mechanic (which narrows the tracking gatewidth to physically block flares) is more effective at close ranges, maybe less than 2km.
Your assumption are right. The gatewidth FOV of TY-90 is 1.25°, not enough to flare resistant.
So if I’m reading the bug report correctly if it gets implemented it would have both FoV shrinking to 1° as well as Seeker shutoff? That would instantly make it the best IR missile in the game lmao
1 Like
Yes. And I have provided two alternative options for balance adjustments: 1. Seeker shutoff +1.5°; 2. Only seeker shutoff.
not really, when combined both, there will be like 1+1>2, especially when AIM-9M has 3.6° fov, 1.25 is a great improvement.
they will come into effect by turns, providing great irccm ability
so I only stand for shutoff +1.5° gatewidth
And having the fov shrink makes sure that the seeker shutoff doesn’t engage too early or too often to give the seeker shutoff more time to “reset” so it doesn’t have to be stuck in IOG mode for too long right?
1 Like