I would, but I have like a dozen or more other bug reports that I want to file. Having the last 4 of the responses to my bug reports being a clear case of reading comprehension skill issue does not help my motivation either, especially when the replies are closed off immideately and everyone insists on just filing a new report.
Also, I just wanted to do a large bug report on IR signatures and their scaling with aspect angles, but that will take a lot more reading and researching. Reporting the F-5 (in this comparative manner) will just lead them to buffing the F-117, unless anyone here has docs that use the F-5/T-38 for IR missile tests.
PS: If I interpreted the figues correctly (I know, I know, don’t rely on datamines), it seems like the only difference between the F-117 and all other jets is that the rear aspect IR multiplier is 0.5 instead of 1, which seems very pessimistic.
This is a poor misreading of the source. You’re talking about early flares with a dual band FM seeker threat. The 9L was a single band FM seeker and was going up against broader band flares. That source also has errors. GAR-4A is AIM-4G, a nitrogen cooled InSb detector of a fundamentally different design from the nitrogen cooled AM PbS seeker of 9G.
There are also a lot of comments in this thread that take tests and evaluations and extrapolate them to absolutes. Missiles are not the perfect things games present them as, and even if an evaluation states that they were not able to get a 9L to be decoyed if it was locked onto the plume, that does not mean that this is always the case, but rather it was the case in their certain scenario.
