yep, thats the image they dont accept, even with AVIC title
bruh they are just double standard
3 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.
7 Likes
It would be great if we could find the original file of the document shown in this image.
2 Likes
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
2 Likes
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
8 Likes
8 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.
5 Likes
The bug report managers don’t think it’s a bug
Otherwise why they gain it Not A Bug?
1 Like
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.”
6 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
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/SKtrVa4yAzz8
Ahhh, classic, “NoT a BuG”, :|
If the maximum g-force achieved by the top-tier Chinese ARH is only ~18–22G and that’s not a “bug,” then what is it?! This is either an obvious error in the rocket’s data during the latest updates or a deliberate action to harm this nation in War Thunder—it’s some kind of nonsense. The bug reporting department isn’t even able to provide a comprehensive explanation; they just close the threads without any explanation…
We have to provide official data that is sometimes so hard to obtain because it’s military equipment, yet when they’re asked about the changes made, they don’t explain anything, won’t show any documents—they just close the report and that’s it… Double standards.
ARH AIM-7M lol
3 Likes
Tuffffff
AIM-7P Sparrow, PL-12 have data link.
PL-12 Sparrow🥲
2 Likes
At least they don’t need to proof RVV-AE is R77
Things come to China:
Proof PL12AE (E for export) is equivalent PL12A
1 Like
I remember when the CM502KG came and had only the HE warhead,saw ppl pointing the SAP-HE warhead of it,they all replied " theres nothing showing SAP-HE warhead on CM502KG ",i got the missiles brochure from CPMIEC,and after such a long time i just got a “devs decided not to add SAP-HE”…if was somekind of nerf they wouldve accepted instantly…
1 Like