He asked politely geez. Calm down, tiger.
This appears inaccurate. FI has independent editorial teams. Additionally, other reliable sources have also cited work of FI like us department of defense which further validates my point. And us departmentOfD is not the only one in that regard. If a primary source considers this source reliable enough to be cited, you have a conflict between a multiple amount of primary sources.
1 Like
Developers don’t like Forecast International.
1 Like
Interesting. I am curious why. I am not familiar with FI.
Wow, they have a think tank and consulting service.
I do feel like they are trying to sell me something at each page I go to. I think I see how they can be problematic.
I can tell. Developers should also not like any primary sources that cite forecast international then (but this does not happen as instead of following the common logic of deeming a reliability of a source, private companies rather follow their own opinions).
If a widely recognized authority on the field cites such source while also being used as a primary source, it can easily be deemed for the authority to consider this source as reliable.
Larger primary sources often have more reputation on the field anyway, especially govermental bodies. Govermental bodies also have a presumption of responsibility.
Anyway, i would understand why a private company wants to believe a specific primary source in one thing but not in another thing. Personal beliefs often go above and beyond the scope of reasonability, even legality. Another example of such non sense from gaijin is when they made their own opinion of owning a specific website, then losing in court. Such non sense opinions do exist always.
Anyway back on the topic of phoenixes, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics already confirmed FI materials on relevance mentioned items to be correct. You can also check paper 2005-0700 from AIAA and phoenix (-) final propulsion delivery from hercules inc
After considering those sources, there is nothing left that can be deemed irrefutable
1 Like
DoD also cites completely erroneous sources constantly. In fact, they do so more often than not. That furthers my point, if data is shown to be unreliable… discard it. In this case, and as is most often the case with FI or Janes… they’re WRONG.
1 Like
Above mentioned sources already confirmed dataset to be correct. Can you consider something a primary source if they cite unreliable sources? This is not only DOD citing them.
1 Like
The data isn’t correct, though. It’s been proven wrong long ago, no need to continue posting nonsense we know isn’t true. The Forecast International data for AIM-54 is just wrong. Period.
1 Like
Fascinating you want to chime in only to rail and discourage his research.
If it’s been proven wrong before, it should be easy for you to show him. Do him the favor and steer him right if the data is wrong.
Telling a user his post are nonsense and disregarding his research is not community building and is literally used as an example in our guidelines.
Constantly telling a user a source is invalid but refusing to review the content with him is backwards. You have all the time in the world to tell people they are wrong and discourage them from seeking out a truth. But no time to help them out.
All you do is lurk around the forum for any activity to discourage users from conducting their own research and discussing with others on how to improve the game. You only seek these opportunities to talk about yourself and boast how you supposedly already know it all when we all know you understand very little.
If you know the data he is referring to is incorrect. Show him where and why. You absolutely have nothing else to do. Show him.
2 Likes
If a source is citing a secondary / tertiary source like Forecast International then it is probably not a primary source.
3 Likes
Alright you did not check the other sources added. Aren’t we being stubborn here claiming all data by X is wrong even when crosschecked against top rs scholars?
2 Likes
Us department of defense, european commission, WB, United nations…
3 Likes
How can you say “I tested” and “it works” without actually testing something?
Basically what you are saying is.
I tested at half the range
therefore it works at that range
Makes absolutely no sense.
where are you getting the ‘‘half the range’’ from?
From here, that range is 103km. Then you gotta wait till you pick the up the target, wait for the second sweep over the target to get a trackfile, lock it, “heatup” the missile and fire. You’ve got a ~900ms closure, he’s firing under 100km. Thats well below 50% of the range for that phoenix test
1 Like
It is possible to make user missions and modify both the radar and missiles seeker range if necessary to test maximum kinematic limits… but that doesn’t even matter in this case cuz hitting the target in that scenario won’t prove it is performing accurately. It’s still underperforming.
You can modify the radar/missile values but I don’t know if you can change the render range, as that the thing that would need to be changed
1 Like
Just because a source originates from one of those organisations does not necessarily make it a primary source.
When you say a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary you are describing the nature of the source, not the origin of the source.
If a declassified trial report from the DoD says something about a missile then that would be a primary source, because it would be a direct first hand account of the trial. If a separate DoD paper says something about a missile and cites that claim to Wikipedia (or Jane’s, or any other source) then it’s not a primary source because it is just repeating something from a secondary or tertiary source.
If a paper from the DoD (or another “trustworthy” organisation) repeats a claim from Wikipedia, it does not suddenly convert Wikipedia into a primary source, and the paper from the DoD would not be a primary source either (at least with regards to the claim cited to Wikipedia).
3 Likes
While it does not convert the source into a primary source, it does validate the fact that in eyes of such authority, the source is viewed as reliable.
It does not, especially when the information within is known to be wrong. The DoD regularly cites unverified or unvalidated information which is why you should discard who is citing it and look at the credibility of the original source of the information.
1 Like