They are correct though in that there is not a single source which says the Brimstone pulls 40° of AoA, only that it can attack targets up to 40° of boresight - which it can already do in game.
2 Likes
Seeker is real and photos were posted in that topic
Not disagreeing with that.
The bug report is poorly worded and grasping at straws, but the reply is just as ignorant.
1 Like
Please don’t spread that discussion in here.
All that was posted were pictures of a mock-up
What the ppl are demanding is a picture of the Kh38mt on a plane or a official document stating it’s usage.
Until then we cannot be sure if it is real or not.
1 Like
IT’S LITERALLY YOU who brought it up man.
You have photos of different seekers, i am not talking about mockups
Damn, your attempt on gaslighting is wild
So where was it confirmed that those seekers are actually real and functional
Since when can the Eurofighter carry Kh-38MT?
Unless I missed something, there you go
1 Like
If iam really gaslight Ing you should be easily able to prove me wrong, right?
Yes. You start talking about kh38mt, i answer to you and you go “Please don’t spread that discussion in here.”
Intelectual dishonesty at it’s peak
So follow your advice and stop talking about kh38 in eurofighter thread
It not him it was me that sarcastic about Gaijin double standard BS about Brimstone need lot document fix it but added fake KH-38MT without any proved it existence.
Great that you are telling me Iam gaslighting but are doing nothing but throwing allegations around.
To me it sounds more like you are gaslighting
Nice deflection. Peak gaslighting.
Again:
I might do some testing tomorow and make a new bug report for the brimstones if need be. I was pretty sure the claim for 40° AOA was gonna get your bug report killed cuz nothing states the missile needs to pull 40° AOA, nor would it need to do so logically, since that would be the AOA required to keep the target roughly centered immediately post launch, which would be rather extreme and would suggest the missile could engage targets with offsets more significant than 40° off-bore.
All that really needs to be proven is if the missile is kinematically capable of engaging targets at the 40° pre-launch gimbal limit in-game reliably, since thats literally the reason it has that gimbal limit. If it cant, its underperfoming, likely in overload and/or control authority.
Iam not talking about the kh38 anymore
So:
It can do that reliably in game, so long as the target is a few km away. In order to report anything, we would need to know the minimum range of the missile IRL and compare that to the minimum range in the game.
1 Like
Ty for saving me the trouble then, I was under the impression it could not do so in-game.
Those images are not much use unfortunately. As the devs point out, Brimstone uses a different guidance system in game and IRL.
Ingame the brimstone uses proportional navigation, in real life, the missile is designed to enter a steep dive immediately after launch and then cruise horizontally to the target, before diving in on terminal approach.
So the reason the missile is not angling down as much in game could be because the guidance mechanism used in game does not require it to do so. Rather than the missile not being capable of doing so.
Whats the proof of that claim? I was kind of suprised they claimed the brimstone used a different controller than PID. Not necessaripy cuz they couldnt implement a different controller, but because its dubious itd be required considering the target set?
I feel like to some degree, this is just kind of like reverse lofting for a certain period of time, and could be modelled.
Its also not the only trajectory employed obviously, as we have vids of the missile lofting up for example. Im not even sure why a missile would fly down, horizontal, then down again, that sounds like a horrid use of energy…
This is the IRL flight path. It is quite obviously a different flight path to that used in game. The devs apparently cannot model missiles having a level cruise stage.
6 Likes