at this point if they are so agasint increasing its speed, maybe we should focus on getting its deltaV correct or higher atleast
the SLM having about as much deltaV as the strella is kind of a joke for a system suposed to hit something AT atleast 30km no?
(also how do i make “spoiler” so that the imges are not taking up so much space?)
Then
one thing i dont get is we have sources talking about certain ranges speeds and stuff why cant gaijin do some math like on other stuff we have ingame already to try and match the sources?
They hopefully are because there’s an internal report pertaining to “Time to target” and “Range”, so we need to wait and see what they do.
then i hope it happens because atm i would not even research it but i got a question can the Launcher also use SLS or just SLM if both it would be nice to have an option for it
Only SLM, the SLS uses an diffrent launcher since its much smaller
ah okay thats good to know and i forgot to ask Engine Power and Gearing correct on Dev since Gaijin does have a History with those being wrong on the FlaRadRak
Unlikely, but the dev runs a few more days + after that they could still change it
How is a powerpoint presentation from a single guy about the insensitive properties of various munitions from a non-user country a primary source?
Its not a user/factory/repair manual, its not from the OEM, its not an original handbook.
At best its an expert opinion publication, and the expert opinion is not even on the subject of the missiles maneuvrability, its an offhand comment used as filler to make the powerpoint less empty.
Not only is this not a primary source (or even a secondary source in the context it was used for), it doesnt even claim 50g to be the max, its just claims “50g turn reported”, which, sidenote, reported by who? Reported in what context? This “primary” source isnt even the source of the 50g claim, and the source itself isnt provided.
The most insulting thing is that all of the descriptors that apply to this “source” have been used to shoot down other sources used to try to buff the SLM
so you are telling me the iris-twas nerfed based on a report of a single guy written in 2008??? before the SLM was even concepualized let alone put into production??
do you have the full link for this? im going to make a counter report
I dont think a “counter report” can even be made. You’d have to ask @Gunjob , but im pretty sure you arent allowed to disprove/discredit a source as the sole impetus for a bug report.
Gaijins already accepted this as “primary” and they wont change their mind now, since the source says what they want it to say.
Like, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure you cant “bug report” a bug report
It’s from the MSIAC, a member funded NATO project. “A single guy”, so like most publications ever? The more important part is who that guy is. Edit: TSO (as i understand it) is the departement lead for each of their individual areas they operate in.
It might be a liiiiitle stretch towards primary source, but honestly not that far if at all. It’s certainly above a secondary source as they are an instance that NATO personell ask technical questions to regarding munitions.
Edit:
I also want to add that the tech mods likely also compare other information in the presentation to known facts to se how reliable the source is in general, there are other munitions mentioned so if those line up with what is known then it can also be assumed that the likely hood of other information being correct is higher. This is however just an assumption from my part, i don’t know if the tech mods do this but it would make a lot of sense if they did.
darn(the fact that its from 2008 before the SLM or SLS were made is a bit bizzar for acceptance) its like saying there is no way an aircraft could go past mach 2-3 based on reports from the 50s
Publications by the Leopard 2 Project Lead were treated as secondary when I used Lobitz’s books (and they were actually on topic rather than just mentioning something to fill in more space).
It’s certainly above a secondary source as they are an instance that NATO personell ask technical questions to regarding munitions.
It’s a primary source when it comes to IM properties of the equipment in question, it’s barely a secondary, mostly a third-party source when it comes to using it to nerf/buff missile flight characteristics.
I’m not too sure about this but if the source is indeed prior to the production/introduction into service there is the chance to use more up to date primary sources to disprove it. Again, take it with a grain of salt.
Provided what other users here said is true, that the source is actually prior to the missile even entering production etc…
It was for the SLS as that uses the exact same air to air missile the jets use. The IRIS-T AAM was already in use by then.
The IRIS-T air to air was already in use by then, but i think your point still stand in general, newer primary sources likely take priority i think.
the problem is less the fact what overload the missile has right now, its more the fact that it gets accepted while so many others get rejected (1 outdated claim vs 4-5 2015-204 sources about the slm), different topic yes, but if there was a single source stating anywhere (no matter how wrong) stating the SLM could only go mach 1.7 they would “fix” it within a day
Also i’m 99% positive I know where the “50g turns reported” actually comes from, as that’s been in fact talked about in an EVEN OLDER PUBLICATION from Poland (of all places), and the claim itself dates to 1998(!) which was still during R&D and prototype phase…
So lets get this bread, shall we?
Okay. Why are you even pretending that Gaijin cares about “accuracy” of any sort?
