Oh no I can see that but this has just devolved into this guy being mad at me because I suggested that china may not have the best equipment in the world, and that gajin doesn’t treat china any worse than anyone else.
Tbf this change was marketed as a buff which it isnt, and completely unfunded
3 Likes
That will not analyse like that way OK?
The gear damage analyse should come with initial gear company
Type: system engineering in google
Yeah but it appears to be a glitch rather than something done intentionally.
I’m not going to do that but how are you going to test the damage to the structure of the plane when landing on its gears in hard conditions if the plane isnt on its gears?
You dont really change all those values accidently tbh
Yeah but they might have meant to change the values but have another line of code elsewhere that should have effected it to keep it the way it was. Gajin coding is a mess and usually has like things linked to each other that shouldnt, at one point crashing an aircraft in game would straight up crash everyones game so like you know gajin is just changing things and seeing what happens at this point as they dont even know what the code does lmao.
Yes but that is not WORTH to use the whole platform and the pilot life
do a impact test simulation with gears it’s own can produce the similar mechanical conditions
Or you mean US dont care about tax payers so do whatever they like, fine
You take one system for testing built and bought for testing purposes and you hoist it up with a pulley system and drop it. You do not need a pilot for this test, and its much better to find issues in testing then in operation.
They changed 3(4?) Pid values per missile (to be unique to Pl-12 and pl-12A each instead of being the same for both) and the CM to stab distance thats about it, cant really say more
Yeah its gajin the type 10 still has zero weight on its suspension because something in the code is messing it up which is why it turns so sharply and loses all its speed.
you know impact and static analyse isnt same right? if under the figure situation it is more like a static test, but where’s the data points?
lear some engineering plz
In other hand if there’s ever a chinese equipment (which is not likely in engineering), you will laugh and send the picture everywhere LOL
I need to learn engineering says the guy who couldn’t figure out you wouldn’t have a pilot in the vehicle for a drop test. Also why would the us ever release data on the f35 test?
And the data from the test is what gets destroyed when you the plane hits the ground under certain forces.
Thats not a test in engineering, you can be the first write in jounral congrads
what if the gear failed? my whole platform destroyed?
risk accessment
Sweet summer child its a test to see what happens when the plane smacks into the ground with a certain amount of force, and if the gear fails they know it couldnt land and they start looking into why it failed lmao, but yes the plane would be damaged.
-
Which new top tier jet was that? Please don’t say the J-15T lmao.
-
The J-11B was already easily beaten by the F-15C GE and all EFTs lol.
Release it too late? Release it at the same time as way better jets? Release it with the old engine? Make the engine upgrade borderline nothingburger?
3 Likes
Yeah the J15 is a good jet low countermeasure sure but still a good jet easily better than the J11B.
Idk man I’m pretty bad with planes but I think i did well in the j11b.
How is that gajins fault they released things in weird ways all the time literally every american plane has been DOA for like the past two years lol.
I just saw the rwr comment btw… all chinese jets basically use the same rwr just renamed, and both j10c and j15T share the same radar which thex shouldnt
Then why whole platform instead the same weight of the platform to “simulate” (thats the key word) under the same circumstances?
Theres pretty much all solid mechanics none fluid
Welcome to Engineering, kid
A subject which need conclude analyse theory and COSTS
The only truley doa jet for america mightve been the F-18E… and even that can be debated