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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
