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.
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
Best of luck, it is a very well written report. Much better than mine.
Congrats on the accepted label
That’s good news lol.
Also thank you for your effort.
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
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?
yes, it will “reset” much more frequently
P sure what he meant was just having 1.25° won’t really be that good, but having reduced fov to augment seeker shutoff is comically powerful
1.25° will be very good, even too good, it will provide almost an absolute kill in PL-8B’s range.
so 1.5 to 2° for balance is acceptable
And this is why we dont have such missiles on jets in the game… yet
I’ve heard a claim that when both IRCCM methods are present simultaneously, only the seeker shutoff actually takes effect, though I haven’t verified it.