And there is also the Dev criteria, where everything goes…
If we can indeed prove no MT existed, and we make it vocal enough they just might.
Or they will keep it for “balance reasons”
I know in some cases they rejected it, but I’m not sure if they have a hard rule against mockups for plane loadouts
Last time i checked they had.
But there are always exemptions from the rules…
1 Like
Well he’s wrong lol
OLS-27 and derivatives use a very different optics train and gimbal assembly from what would be expected in an iir missile
Please read the whole thread before being so confident in your statements.
You can clearly see a lens at the bottom and the circular thing at the top is indeed a gimbal rotation point, there is even marker paintings on the bearings to indicate rotation.
9 Likes
But … But … Do you have a video where the missile is launched at a target with a selfie camera mounted on the missile pointing towards the seeker so that we can be sure it for real works and it’s not just propaganda?!
1 Like
I see, my bad. I scrolled through the thread last night late and only saw low resolution pictures that made it look like we were seeing internal reflections.
OLS-27 still uses a very different assembly and optics train and they look nothing alike.
God, do you still believe in this nonsense about washing machines?
It was supposed to be sarcastic :)
3 Likes
ive seen bug reports denied because manufacture brochures were not considered valid sources
8 Likes
they accepted these ones as source though
The Flakpanzer 341 coelian was removed from the game due to the turret only beeing a wooden mockup. The chassis and weapons existed and worked but the vehicle never was functionnaly completed.
Afaik, the proof of the Kh-38MT existing is literally the same. The rest of the Kh-38M missile exists and a mockup was made, but there is no proof of the missile ever being completed or test. The situations are equivalent.
10 Likes
Again, as I said … Snail sometimes does as it pleases …
They once had a rule about “no afterburning jets” …
But brochures are generally considered a valid source.
That is the evidence that most users in this thread is requesting and looking for. As well as arguing that without such evidence it shouldn’t be in game.
I personally don’t have an opinion either way, i just want people to discuss using correct information and argue their point based on the same knowledge and from the same evidence. After that everyone is free to have their own opinions about things.
7 Likes
Hes a radar dev, thats not gonna help afaik
I understand
I’m just pointing out that requiring proof beyond what the country/company of origin claims is unreasonable …
he has earlier given opinions on other missile systems that are non radar
Following on from this, that looks like a refracting telescope. I don’t see evidence of a primary or secondary mirror in there. Unfortunately, this doesn’t really help us in any way regarding if it was iir or not, both laser guided and iir munitions have used refracting telescopes in the past.
However, given the antireflective coatings, I’m more willing to believe it’s IIR. That’s a large gimbal assembly and likely has space for a dewar of some kind or a compact Stirling cycle cooler.
But it could still have been a mock-up/prototype for bench testing and not a production unit.
It’s not or we wouldn’t have “marketing lie” meme