Thank you for the reply, I think the user is well aware of how we test resistance to flares because we have done so together often in the past. His personal issues with me continue to present themselves and he is unable to stop heckling me at any chance he can get.
In fact, we did these tests in relation to a bug report that you assisted us with at the time.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PV1HITijUnwT
This does not confirm fov for either missile
Neither is this a video of the pl5C or pl8.
Hell we can test sensitively together later for old times sake.
The PL5C is much more flare resist. You are one telling players their experience is not relevant.
All I ask is you prove it instead of referring to google docs.
People have wild claims all the time. For example, some claim the R-60M is more flare resistant than the AIM-9L. This is also disregarding the myriad of other factors that contribute to flaring off a missile like:
What size is the target?
What caliber flares are they using?
Aspect?
Engine setting?
Facing the ground or sky?
Distance?
We can’t assume people are always using missiles in the most optimal shots or chance to hit their target. Theoretically, from the sounds of it, PL-8 should be more flare resistant.
Yes and google docs done by players then passed off and read by other players with no formal understanding of game development or playing the actual vehicle in game how they are designed is not something that should be relied on completely and brush actual reports of user experience to the side no matter how many.
Your points are correct as well.
There must be a middle ground to seeking the truth. Both can be completely right. One can be wrong at times. We should never just solely rely on one or the other. Such as brushing players actual game experience aside because we have google docs we assume as 100% truth every time without confirming ourselves.
Even the author is aware of the inevitably of mistakes and points that out in the doc.
Regardless of the claims, I datamine information on my own and can confirm the variables associated with flare resistance heavily favor the PL-8 over the PL-5C. The PL-8 will decoy to flares only at a further distance than the PL-5C because of the field of view being smaller.
I won’t pretend I understand everything in a datamine, but these docs post the built-in code of objects. Obviously, the main focus of this point is the FoV which usually equates to “smaller is better”. There is a possibility that a bug exists that widens the FoV when it’s not supposed to, but I do not have the tools or know how to determine if that is happening. Which is why, theoretically, the PL-8 should be more flare resistant.
What’s likely happening is that people are not able to get the most optimal shots due to the airframe or lack of HMD. I have yet to use these missiles, so my take is mostly presumptuous, but I wouldn’t say the missile is worse based on available information. The BR placement can also affect the relative experience.
So would the solution be to fire the missile closer in this case? That’s the conclusion I’m reaching with this.
The closer to rear aspect (directly behind) a target both in angle and distance is going to yield better resistance to flares in both cases, but the PL-5C can never be as resistant as the PL-8 due to the higher FoV.
The FoV is visible because it is the circle that turns red when a target is inside of it or is slaved to look at the target by radar / IRST.
a reputable tech mod already replied and informed the other user… But they are now solely here for the sake of being argumentative because they have a personal issue with me. I’m not going to entertain it further.
Not only is the FoV smaller on the PL-8, but it seems the PL-8 also has a better rangeband ratio which should determine how likely a missile goes for flares over the hot engine in rear aspect.
PL-8 rear IR range: 11km
PL-8 flare detection range: 11km
1:1 ratio
PL-5 rear IR range: 5.5km
PL-5 flare detection range: 11km
5.5 : 11 ratio
So we can conclude that PL-8 should have better flare resistance using two different methods.
Three if you consider;
FoV data
Rangeband data
In-game testing shows it
All of this data comes directly from the game and not the google doc… which just happens to summarize for ease of reading the data mentioned above… and none of which that we are discussing is inaccurate per the google doc thus far.
I agree, but it just isn’t. Not in actual games (since I have not played the jh7 lately).
It’s widely known amongst players who play the jet and tech tree. PL5C is a pretty decently flare resistant missile and the Python took a hit right about the time the R73 came out and aim9m
So has it changed recently or not. Or those actual players. Quite a number of them, are mistaken and those who never played the missile know better because of a google doc done by some other players who already add a disclaimer that there are potential mistakes?
There has to be a better way of verifying reports of players instead of simply brushing them off because we have someone’s datamine report.
Show a discrepancy and it can be reported, until then there is nothing to discuss. You know as well as I do looking back at the MiG-29’s performance that people were smoking crack when they said it was the best FM in the game → now they hand that torch to the F-16 as they should have from the beginning.
You yourself when we first met thought the Kfir C.7 was king and that it could beat anything until I quietly humbled you and brought you into my squadron. You learned a lot from me.
Ok fair. But how can people show or find a discrepancy when they are immediately brushed off &
shut down with “datamines do not show therefore it’s not true and a skill issue.”
Many players, including those who are new to the game and do not know better will just quietly agree not knowing that datamine reports can very well miss things or report them incorrectly by mistake.
Why not let the community discuss a little bit amongst themselves first to see if others have experienced similar issues when flying the jH7 and J8F. Then if there is a enough people who can come to a consensus, a real look into the designs of both missiles as well as the files is called for.
I don’t even fly the J8F anymore because the Python and PL8 was hit when the R73 and Aim9M came out.
In the past, even in that AIM-9L report others shared their experiences via video evidence. Word of mouth is useless for a report.
Best case, it prompted my testing and I confirmed there wasn’t an issue. The PL-8 outperforms the PL-5C in regards to flare resistance and that matches the known datapoints seen in the datamine.
Regardless of who is right - regardless of what the actual stats are, the PL-5B/C feel better to use in-game, to me at least. If I could run 6 PL-5C on the J-8F, I would. Didn’t mean for this to turn into some flame war.
J8F is 12.3 on the dev server with only x2 pl12’s. A limited fox 3 load and complete absence of irccm fox 2’s. This is a recipe for disaster. It needs better pl8’s or its going to be a bloodbath.
Agree . But … I wonder why J-8F is not making so much noise.
In the current environment, access to Top BR 12.7 is limited to 4 adversaries, but the next update will take us back to the dark ages of the past.
This pic is Most Worst pic I have
Is there really zero ripspeed improvement on j8f over mig21f-13??? Its so god awful that being forced low means you are easily chased down by virtually everything, so despite your immense engine power you’re effectively an f5 near ground level. This jet is very hard to like when its nothing but downsides and compromises
Ah bro … I have owned most of the fighters with the exception of the Italians, but I think that the J-8F seems to have the best turning ability from the speed of sound.
That may be due to poor energy retention, but it could be fun if a decent IRCCM short-range missile was added to the J-8F.
Let’s leave aside whether that power would work with BR13.0 :3
anyone on the dev server know if j8f received improved pl8’s with irccm? The f4f ice received its aim9l/i with irccm
