More reliable than you misusing your data tools, as many have pointed out. It’s like that time you’re like wow statshark inaccurate by 4x! then I pointed out that it was within 1% of your own calculations
You can dislike statshark. But to say it is wrong because of your own bias is your own issue.
Wow sure doesn’t look like 20Gs to me
The very same replay system that people pointed out is even more inaccurate? Missiles frequently reached 50G overload despite having only 20-35G on their cards.
So Statshark being inaccurate is bad, but eyeballing with WT replay using inaccurate overload values from said replays is fine?
You are literally disproving actual IN-GAME replays with sensor view against your Statshark graph.
You could not possibly be more disingenuous.
This is not a thing if you take into consideration sustained G’s.
A very specific frame where it says a very high number is not representative of the reality of the missile behaviour, thats why I posted a video where you could clearly see that the missile didn’t reach abve 20G sustained turn when trying its best to turn into the evading target.
This is literally not the first time you show bias against statshark because you eyeballing with WTRTI is somehow more accurate.
Here’s even someone pointing out how WTRTI can be wrong:
In game replays that multiple people pointed out is inaccurate.
An inaccurate WT replay known for displaying overly high G overloads ain’t it either. And this is ironic for someone frequently using WTRTI still frames as proof of things.
Because it is. WTRTI takes data from locahost wich is inherently more accurate than statshark.
This is common knowledge.
But in the discussion we’re having about the missiles, I never mentioned WTRTI, I showed actual replays with sensor view. But you are trying to derail the argument with baseless accusations from.
He mentioned an old discussion about WTRTI vs statshark where I realised he was also the dude going head-on against actual proff again with bad-faith arguments. He is the same guy I had a similar discussion long before and there is no point in arguing with him.
Yes. Everything is explained in that topic and in the topic I linked. Even the Suggestion moderator agreed and explained that WTRTI was a lot more accurate in the topic I linked above.
For the sake of respecting OP’s I won’t keep on going, it is going offtopic again, and it is also a closed argument which you selectively ignore, and keep calling me a hypocrite for some reason.
Mistake from my part which I aknowledged, despite you not having played the F-4J or any other phantom, which was still my main point at that time. So you are nitpicking and still in the wrong.
Only for raw data. You misrepresenting them is a failure point. You also missed the opening statement:
Read:
But “you didn’t play this other phantom!!!” does not make it any better pal. Do you punch someone then go “but I donate to charity”? Sounds ridiculous right?
If this Phantom is supposed to be 11.7, the Tornado IDS which only has AIM-9s, is slower, and has zero dogfight capabilities should be 10.7, and the IDS ASSTA1/SLE should be 11.3 in air RB, since it is an infinitely inferior plane in air combat.
