Creating spam reports will lead to your account being banned on the CBR site. Do not make reports with the same sources over and over if they have already been rejected.
There are appropriate ways of asking for a second opinion on a source, or you can report a comment if you believe it needs a second look too. Spamming however is not the way to go.
how about the IRCCM part. Current PL-8B should share similar IRCCM to other multi-element seeker missiles like FIM-92, which also matches what you said in CM Covert Disclosures No.3.
current PL-8B isn’t stronger than PL-5E II, shares similar IRCCM and similar range, a bit better mobility but less acceleration
What we mentioned in CM disclosures was the Devs current assessment at the time. Since then, more information has been collected.
Reports are welcome for any new or additional information that may show missing features or performance.
it uses quad-element dual-band seeker with rosette-pattern image scanning, shares same IRCCM to Stinger, TY-90, or Python-4 (not in game yet for same reason). I believe all this information can be easily find.
That’s amazing, considering that your “”“”“Bug Reporting Manager”“”“” seem to routinely ignore circumstantial evidence and then somehow pass completely vague nonsense like “Bro look Fox has da manual turret it shouldn’t turn so fast bro please nerf bro”, if you think the community shouldn’t behave the way they do maybe tell your bug reporting managers to stop acting like the way they do?
As I mentioned above, there are mechanisms in place where you can ask for a second review of a report or report a comment within a report if you believe it has been acted upon incorrectly.
Let’s hope it would actually work as intended then.
Again, conjecture until the booster is added.
The Python 3 may not have been intended for range but the PL-8B was specifically modified for it. The PLAAF wanted a longer range IR missile, they did the upgrade knowing they were sacrificing OBS capabilities. The entire purpose was to be able to get the missile to 4+km fast.
The Tracking suspension is better for this kind of work, that’s why it should be added. Just because the PL-8B is supposedly good at XYZ specific scenario doesn’t mean we should limit its capabilities to only be good at that scenario. For every 1 headon where gatewidth is useful there will be 10 range shots where it is a massive nerf. There is no need to artificially hold back it’s capabilities just because it’s good in 1 specific aspect.
I agree with the velocity and propulsion, but that would mean within 2km launch, any off axis launch or even no off axis will result in a miss cause it over runs. I’d still prefer R73 cause it just requires u to turn less especially against significantly better turning opponents like trying to out turn a SU30 with a mirage is painful, but I managed any how with MICA, not that this is IR but without TVC, range isn’t gonna help that much especially as NATO jets can spam flares.
How exactly can you do this on the site?
Go to any comment, click the dots > Report
Thanks.
Do you have any books or sources on the gatewidth IRCCM? The only thing close to FoV reduction I’ve heard about is this:
But that has the seekers FoV smaller as a hard stop, it is not adjustable. The seeker is able to gimbal on it’s mechanism but the FoV is the same. To change the FoV, that requires a change to the optical system inside the missile, the seeker construction I’ve seen have no way of adjusting the that, they are fixed components.
I could be wrong, which is why I would like some sources to read about it.
gateWidth is the instantaneous FoV of the seeker without stuff like the sidewinders expanded acquisition mode, which is more or less a rapid area search more than a widened FoV. Other ordnance has the ability to increase or decrease FoV, some just has a very small FoV to begin with.
Ultimately the concept is simple, a smaller FoV and discriminatory wavelength detection to focus on that closer to airframe emissions.
This is a response to (AFAIK) the largest player organized poll on the forums.
They seem to miss the critical element of the poll, which is that both are equally ahistorical, but one is a direct nerf.
Do we have any sources to show that the PL-8B’s multi-element is closer to Seeker Shutoff as opposed to Gatewidth or is it just all for nothing?
This is poll btw IRCCM type on the PL-8B [Poll]
You can try to use some Patent/Research paper regarding multi element seeker as source
I have been trying to find one that specifies the PL-8B’s capabilities. I may try to get into contact with a technical university soon to ask if they have any papers that aren’t available on the internet.
There’s a paper called Simulation and Analysis of 4-unit Infrared Guiding-head’s Anti-jamming Principle. One of the author came from the Eighth Institute of Airforce so it’s reliable.
Section 2.1 of the paper outlines the 4-unit infrared guiding-head’s anti-jamming principle. It have both seeker shutoff （main） and gatewidth (about 1°)
