Hey, we’re almost done with the report, could you link both of these articles to where you found them?
As a side note, I think this will be our last attempt at the Seeker Shutoff report, after this we’ll work on the booster if the seeker report is denied.
how? the paper is proved to be a concept
I think we should try and find out what is wrong with PL-12 first.
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.
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.
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.
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
