It’s quite easy if you are the one dealing the cards.
I’m simply asking what the burden of proof should be for implementing the mentioned items, just so that we’re all on the same page. Clearly planned and paper weapons/features would not fit in this criteria.
This is likely to keep certain vehicles historically accurate-ish and not have their BR raised too high for their own good.
And if we find neither we’ll have Shrodinger’s Kh-38 in the game?
Yeah, I asked the same question. Ultimately would need to hear from the Devs/CM but
Is the best answer we’ve gotten so far
to my information yes, because sure, a munition can be fired technically, but if it was never mounted on a plane, then how it can be test fired successfully?
if we find neither then i guess we are at mercy of gaijin showing us proof, and if they decide not to, then we are stuck
1 Like
Unfortunately Gaijin might declare lack of evidence for it not-existing. Like a doc stating it was canceled or something, which would be hugely infuriating
8 Likes
They will casually ignore this as it goes against their main argument.
mind you, it doesnt need to be proof that a plane which is in game test fired it, because for example, mirage 2000d rmv is capable of fireing and carrying AASM hammers solely on a fact that there was a test of AASM hammers done on Mirage 2000N (a plane that was the base for 2000D Rx and later D RMV)
1 Like
Might wanna save all this, just in case thread gets surprise shutdown
With aircraft and weapon systems so new, so long as there is reasonable expectation that the aircraft will be able to equip it. Then that should be largely suffecient. So in this, if it can carry any version of the KH-38 or derivative of it, then it should be fine
But what aircraft can carry them is largely irrevelant if the weapon system never existed
So let me get this straight. The missile that’s destroyed Ground RB for hundreds of days now was added through (from my understanding) a bare minimum of some brochueres and some sort of 1-off expo model seeker for events? Are we serious? There’s no proof of functionality, compatibility, or anything? What are we doing here? Is this going to be addressed by Gaijin?
I hate to make this parallel, but if we’re using these types of parameters for adding munitions into the game, @MythicPi’s ACIMD comment could come to fruition. Same thing with things like the Aim-9R, Aim-7R, Aim-95 AGILE, etc… I really hope someone can give clarification.
22 Likes
MT or ML?
It has the aame curved rectangle portion (mirror?) Seen in the clearer image from MAKS 2011 that was posted
The same curved rectangle is seen in the production seekers:
Also, once again, I’ve provided the source for the original picture from MAKS 2017, and its very clearly stated to have been displayed with a SALH seeker and was named MLE:
You guys are trying to disprove the claim of the person who actually attended the expo and tool the picture based on what you believe the seeker looks like.
1 Like
why is there a convex lense infornt of it
you dont need them for laser seekers
Don’t you see that they are completely different
2 Likes
Its likely a mirror to focus the laser if I had to guess
A similar structure is seen on the posted Kh-25ML seeker
a mirror?
infront of the sensor?
you know how stupid that sounds
1 Like
Likely the same principle as a mirror telescope, its not stupid at all
3 Likes
