Any original source which it can pull 30G?
If I know why should I telling you these online?
1 Like
yep, I mean the original source for R77, a PDF mark with reliable title, official document (thats GAIJIN asks)
They do not accept we have A and we can speculate B for Chinese
Also not accept something like image above in Chinese
I memorized that evidence proof the DTC10 APFSDS (IK this off topic, but thats how bug report platform did) has a greater pen than ingame now. The source exactly like the image you’ve send, a maintenace handbook, which is at least seems reliable to me, like yours. But GAIJIN said no the source is not clear
Thats how they treat Chinese equipments, according to that extreme strict they did, you cant make double standard on RU stuff, can you?
1 Like
I am sure that if you find a document/paper/patent by avic themselves about the pl-12 or something they will accept it as that’s what they’ve done for r-77.
The first doc is a patent for the r-77 from vympel
Second doc is the manufacturer of the GCS on R-27 saying it can handle a maximum of 35G for 6 seconds
1 Like
Unfortunately there is AVIC document published with specific data. The paper are and should be classified So they will not accept. And some journal about equipments they did not take as evidence.
So now all the data collect from air show and the official statements (there was a poster shown PL12’s max overload 38G)
But that is not the reason so GAIJIN can change the data with their mind whatever they like. The current model just cant reach even close to 38G
AND SAID BY REPORT MANAGER:
Will you not get mad under this double standard?
Every issue relate to PL12 now recieved a Not a Bug. I can even tell you that they did not read the issue then. Because some of the long topic get closed within 5min
3 Likes
yep, thats the image they dont accept, even with AVIC title
bruh they are just double standard
2 Likes
Does this “best performance at medium ranges” mean it can only pull up to 22G? Dude, this manager is completely playing dumb. His words are doing nothing but increasing our anger and resentment, and to me, I don’t even feel angry anymore.
6 Likes
It would be great if we could find the original file of the document shown in this image.
1 Like
It is not really possible due to the poster is only for export
These kind of image is pretty much the best source we can find but they just decide not accept it they can only accept it if it isnt Chinese equipment
1 Like
we should bash this image in their skull until they understand that the pl-12 family should also be at least decent in close range conditions
7 Likes
7 Likes
1 Like
What really bothers me is the lack of communication regarding this change. For all we know this could be a bug which got past QA when they tried to fix missile stability. Currently bug reports place the burden of proof on the reporter, which makes it impossible to contest claims about the current modern missiles.
Therefore I think it’s only fair if we at least got an acknowledgement that this massive performance change is intentional. Just something along the lines of “We think the PL-12 was massively overperforming and should be in the same tier of missiles as the R-77” would do a lot to make us at least understand the change.
4 Likes
The bug report managers don’t think it’s a bug
Otherwise why they gain it Not A Bug?
They could very well not be aware of the massive change, thinking it has always been like this, or think that the missile change was intentional ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In that case you would as a moderator just defend what exists currently, thinking it’s supposed to be like that.
1 Like
his point is that the snail thinks it’s supposed to be that. I’ve seen him elsewhere in this forum and I know where he stands.
Oh, we have an official message stating that the pull change is intentional? I have been thinking it was an unintentional bug all this time
Officially they wouldn’t issue such a blatant message though. I’m just interpreting what yiehgd thought by saying that quote. Quite sarcastically imo.
And they have been constantly suppressing “bug reports” regarding the PL-12 nerf with nab/nei these days. Granted they were not entirely strictly bug reports, but it has served as a more direct method to voice the discontent and protest as opposed to this forum. And suppressing the voiced discontent over the PL-12 nerf using technicalities can indicate that they intentionally did the nerf.
A writer once wrote, “if we don’t rise up from silence, we will perish in it.”
5 Likes
See the Chang log from Gaijin
If I understand this correctly it means the missile more stable means it stability is better
Why they investigate instability now?
Should that word be completely opposite of “stable”?
And if they are investigating the instability, then admit there is a bug. Why they directly gain every issue relate to PL12 a Not A Bug?
Just accept one and there will be no additional bug report need to be sent
Not saying intention but very interesting
1 Like