It exists bro trust.
2 Likes
Its up to you to show proof. And don’t come with stupid theological take. The info of it exist somewhere; Maybe the Manufacture of the pylon. The Russian ministry of defense or even a patent… etc… If you can’t get the info to prove gaijin wrong. Its your problem not mine.
I’m here just pointing your nonsense.
my proof is that currently no images exist of any aircraft outside of the Su-35 using the pylon, please provide counter proof :)
4 Likes
You talk nonsense here, you say it exist, than show us a photo or something.
4 Likes
That’s not how that works at all. Proving a negative (e.g. not possible, doesn’t exist) is not possible. Therefore failure to prove the positive is seen as the proof of the negative.
So, if you say that the SU-30SM can’t use the dual pylon, you’d try to prove that it can use them. If you fail at that, you have proven that it can’t
7 Likes
that wasnt some mod
it was Smin the community manager with a response from the devs
I know that he started but wasn’t the only one. Just like 3 people in this thread has used the burden of proof and the “You can’t prove a negative”. Which you actually can. Just to shifting the burden.
And how would you do that my guy? My university professors were all very clear that formlating a hypothesis as a negative is against the rules because you can’t prove a negative
1 Like
The same proof that has been provided to prove Su-30SM can use dual R-77 pylons is to the same standard as the proof used to prove F-16C Block 50 can use AIM-7s, and AV-8B+ can use AGM-65Ds [because we can’t use the AV-8B+ manual due to it being restricted], and so forth.
You can claim Su-30SM can’t use something that was made for Flankers, but I can claim AV-8B+ is incapable of using AGM-65Ds [or whichever AGM-65 variants I’m actually thinking of cause the sub-variants are all mixed in the mind. because there is no photograph of it on the platform, and the documentation cannot be used as evidence due to restrictions.
I bet everyone complaining about the dual R-77 pylon has never once complained about AGM-65Ds on AV-8B+, AIM-7F on F-16C Block 50, napalm on F-15C Golden Eagle, and every other classified jet that inherited equipment from its previous versions in-game.
1 Like
my proof is that you cannot produce an image of the Su-27SM or Su-30SM equipping this pylon in real life
nope, Iraq only has block 50/52 and you can clearly see that they can use aim 7
no
so unless you have an image of R-77 dual racks on SU-27 and SU-30 it is absolutely not the same standard of evidence
1 Like
That’s an AGM-65E, not a 65D.
As for the other, I said used as proof. That photograph you provided wasn’t used as proof when F-16C was added to the game.
1 Like
R77 on su27 is a thing, and since the current sm is a bit of a Frankenstein that is fine. Idk about su 30.
5th gen was but a marketing term anyway.
also important to note that your argument isnt really valid, a better comparison would be saying F-15C can use something because F-15E can
which people dont really do because it is not a good argument
the difference in air frame and avionics between 27, 30, and 35 are more similar to the difference between F-15D and F-15E than what you are implying
Did you even read that thing? It literally uses a failure to prove the positive as the proof of the negative, which is the exact process I described
so, just like I said, you prove a negative by failing to prove the positive. The burden of proof for double pilons on the SU-30SM is still on you because we already succeed in proofing that it doesn’t exists by not proofing that it exists
1 Like
Well, provind or disproving something based on a single point is also not particularly good. Even with Unicorns - if the horn is actually not made out of bone but out of something more degradable like cartilage there will be EXTREMELY small chance to find a fossilised evidence of a unicorn.
But that’s off-topic. In regards of dual pylons for R-77, only thing we have is photo evidence vs Gaijin access to information that isn’t publicly available. Both sides are equally unreliable so it is pretty much personal bias at this point.