Maybe, except once again, not the focus of the report.
Report only considers FCO (fast cook-off), SCO (slow cook-off), BI (bullet impact), FI (fragment impact), and SR (sympathetic reaction).
Which, surprise surprise, none of which involve the missiles kinematic performance!
They clearly forgot to mention that to the tech mods handling the IRIS-T SLM bug reports that would result in buffs.
Would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone this gem:
Fact that other gajin employes other than tech mods get to sort through bug reports AND the fact that the aforementioned presentation is treated as primary source for someone working at gaijin shows just how insane the whole bug report system is
yea, i don’t think non tech mods should handle tech bug reports for rather obvious reasons
Doesn’t really matter.
I have nothing more to add here, i refer back to my previous answers:
Sure is convenient to use that as justification when it doesnt change the fact that its a single secondary source at best.
You’re just proving that gaijin is just picking and choosing what they wish to believe and doesnt actually stick to their own requirements when it comes to buffing/nerfing things.
End of the day though, arguing with you over weather it was justified of gaijin to nerf a missile based on a single dubious report isnt going to get us anywhere in getting the thing unnerfed. I just want others to have the whole information so they can know the blatant lies you guys are peddling regarding this issue.
Your own rules and the veracity of th info is irrelevant to if a bug report will be accepted or denied, and actionned upon later. All that matters is what gaijin wants to believe, and in this context, what gaijin wants to believe is that the IRIS-T sucks.
Took them a few days to nerf it off a single secondary source, but no amount of sources can get them to buff its speed or range.
This is exactly why people quit bug reporting.
but we cant prove it can go past mach 2 which sucks like if we literally go the people who built the missle to say that it could they would say that that isn’t a primary source they are such idiots someone with a lot of money needs to buy the game from them so they can fix the game the russian vehicles in this game are way to over powered and gaijin knows that the more they make russia better the more people will complain which brings them more money but what they fail to realize is that if they fixed top tier and other nations stuff more people would actually play so they really are shooting themselves in the foot and losing out on customers by nerfing nato countries because once players realize that there is russian bias throughout the whole game they just stop playing like for me I just bought broken arrow and (yeah its not war thunder but at least they model the game and the vehicles fairly and actually listen to the player base and and the graphics are amazing.)
What is the source for that image?
If we can figure out which test it was, we could possibly have enough parameters to try to calculate or simulate it in game.
Like i specifically asked about “weapon/vehicle performance” report because i can understand that for example alpha testers have to test whenever something crashes the game and fix it.
And i was still met with answer that even vehicle/weapon performances bugs are handled by non-tech mods.
Which to me sounds absolutelly balls to the walls insane.
i got this ukrainian source saying 1020 m/s
I have done the math given this specific drone and the test you linked before.
It came out to roughly 450m/s to 533m/s average speed over the whole flight time of 60 seconds and a distance of roughly 27km.
The 27km was the worst case given that drone flew at max speed towards the launcher at the time which means it travelled 8km. Since the IRIS-T SLM missile reached above 12km in height it still ends up travelling almost 30km anyway.
It’s still not in any way a precise answer and more of a ballpark estimate.
Already linked that before. Considered a 3rd party source as well.
Problem is that most sources cite each other :D
Their own implementation or what they believe the missile to be, based on data they have literally doesn’t align with all the information that’s available. The fact that they had the audacity to lie in the dev blog only adds insult to injury. (The missile literally falls out of the sky before it even reaches 30km!)
Their standards have fallen so low that dubious sources with malicious intent, from individuals who have been previously banned for posting classified information (ban evasion) are being accepted as fact.
talking about leak someone “leak” i think? flight performance and data of the AIM-120C-5
There’s also a rumor that he has close ties with the bug report system moderator.
This dude is absolutely insufferable. He was and still trying to purposely nerf eurofighter just out of spite. Misreading/misrepresenting/outright lying with his sources throughout the whole operation, lol.
my whole thing is that the aim 120 c-7 is supposed to be on the slam raam platform not the c-5 I have no idea where they got the c-5 from.
SLAMRAAM operate AIM-120A/B/C-1>8 throughout its service
It be better to approach it from the other side and provide materials to prove a higher G loading.
didnt like half of them got rejected
Sorry but from what ive seen so far most bug reports trying to prove higher G load simply get
shot down.
yo its gunjob! i agree but the fact that 2. sources are passed at primary ones is a bit scetchy considering our sources get passed as not even 2. sources ( also the fact that he only had 1 and we gave them 4)
