Recently, a report regarding the PL-12A’s motor was made. The reporter showed that the missile had a igniter placed further forwards compared to SD-10 to prove the motor is bigger. The report got rejected for using calculations even though reporter himself noted that all numbers are up to developers and he’s only showing that the motor has to be larger. Why does Rafale empty weight report and AAM-4 motor report get accepted based on calculations but when it’s Chinese equipment suddenly not even the mention of calculations is allowed? Will developers recognize the motor differences? Can we get information on whether it’s planned for the PL-12A’s motor to be changed or not? This is concerning
Crazy how “we don’t accept reports based on calculations” for that beautifully written, indisputably correct report, but when laughably flawed logic calculations are submitted to massively nerf Chinese equipment are made, it gets accepted no problem (thank goodness they were at least smart enough not to implement)
most elevation and traverse speed reports for tanks are guesstimates yet are accepted frequently.
Notable guesstimations that were accepted was the puma ww2 scout car buff and the scimitar/fox nerf. Neither were concrete in proof but were accepted and implemented
I do bug reports for british vehicles. Ive had my fair share of CBR moderator shenanigans.
unless its to nerf a non russian or whale (germany/sweden) nation calculation reports are a fools errand. Hard facts from 1st party papers and manuals are the only safe bet. Unless they decide that one document is more correct than all the overwhelming data saying otherwise, like what happens to all F-5 fighter reports
The motor igniter is just very blatantly further forward on one missile, which is objective and visually discernible evidence of a longer motor.
I feel like this is a lot more grounded in reality compared to trying to estimate the empty weight of an aircraft using MTOW (If we use the same accepted logic on the Su-30SM, we find that it is somehow 2,130 kg overweight in-game) but who knows.
Unless, someone would like to object to this by saying that the propellant mass remained the same on the longer motor because China replaced half of the grain with concrete. /s
I can’t speak for the AAM-4 report. But the Rafale empty weight numbers were derived from primary sources and all I did was put the numbers together.
The PL-12 motor report numbers were derived from datamine and pixels/art which are not the same as numbers from primary sources, so it is not the same.
Literally the 66kg propellant mass mentioned in the report was derived from in-game datamine which is not acceptable to use as the basis to make calculations with. I doubt Gaijin themselves even know whether or not the SD-10A’s 66kg propellant mass is even correct, so to say that the PL-12A should have a fuel mass greater than 66kg is working on a faulty foundation.
This is not to say that I disagree with any of the general claims of PL-12A underperforming, because I do not know anything about how Chinese missiles should perform. I sincerely hope and wish the best of efforts towards bug-reporting Chinese missiles to make them more accurate.
But it is very misleading to claim that the PL-12A motor report is anything in the same realm as the Rafale’s empty weight report.
Gaijin is allowed to make guesses and calculations themselves, the players cannot request changes based on guesses and calculations, this has been the case for over 10 years and is something we need to accept already.
