yeh, its their blatand inconsitency in accepting sources that the problem at the moment
wanna buff the SLM? it has to be from a 1st party source , no diehl and german are not 1st party
wanna nerf it? sure this report from 2008 seems reasonable enought
1 Like
You are correct, who that guy is IS important:
So not an org that specializes in munition kinematics.
And that guy is not an expert on missile kinematics, seeing as MSIAC does not staff TSO’s which are experts on said information.
It really is tho. By all definitions, it is at best an “expert” opinion publication, even in the field that the presentation is focused on, which is the insentitivity of the munitions and not their kinematics. Quite literally the definition of a secondary source by gaijins own standards.
Pretending it is anything more than that is just lying.
16 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qX8BVhR52tko
tbh i dont care if its 40g or 60g,( the missile cant reach either at the moment anyways)
but the fact that they “fixed” it based on that source is my real issue
2 Likes
Now they nerf the irist to 40G
Is there even a way for people to reach a so-called 1st hand source on proving it should get 60G max and turn rate 60 degree/sec
its basically impossible to get a data like this = =
again, its not the point of the missile can do it or not in game
its the point of it should can do what it is as irl
4 Likes
“Throughout their lifecycle” meaning even during use, so say for example the propulsion technology expert likely then also have to know about G loads for those missiles as the fuel needs to be able to handle the loads without breaking up and causing an explosion (just as a random example, but i hope it show that there are A LOT of crossover in knowledge from several of those areas). So loke knowing how old the fuel can be before that risk increases for the given maximum G loads.
Do we have any indication of what area that person is the TSO of?
Edit:
Gaijin has likely also lowered the requirements for sources for the most modern things. i don’t think the requirements are even possible to follow for modern things. This is admittedly on tank armor, but they might have followed the same principle in regards to other areas of modern vehicles: ([Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder). Not entirely sure though.
i fully agree but we wont get them to do that if they so willfulingly accept anything making the system look worse, even if the system isnt even mentioned in the report
Energetics of insensitive munitions/propellants. Nothing to do with propulsion or kinematics or anything like that.
“Throughout their lifecycle” meaning even during use, so say for example the propulsion technology expert likely then also have to know about G loads for those missiles as the fuel needs to be able to handle the loads without breaking up and causing an explosion (just as a random example, but i hope it show that there are A LOT of crossover in knowledge from several of those areas). So loke knowing how old the fuel can be before that risk increases for the given maximum G loads.
Crossover =/= being an expert on the topic or even really understanding it. The presentation doesn’t even go in-depth, treating it as anything more than an expert opinion that uses off-hand comments about the properties of weapon systems as the same as a document that goes in-depth on the individual weapon system of interest is simply arguing for the sake of it without actually achieving any sort of conclusion (it’s also called gadanie trzypotrzy here in Poland, i.e talking nonsense cus you don’t want to admit to something).
3 Likes
I refer back to my previous edit:
lower requirement for modern sources
yeah man, i dont think…thats the case, base on what is happening
6 Likes
“Gaijin has likely also lowered the requirements for sources” clearly not when its about buffing the system, i hope gunjob will have a look at the so claimed “3th party sources” considerng its speed
2 Likes
Spoiler
So this is at least interesting to know, because it at least shows that they used those drone before in earlier tests. So one could assume they used the same drones for their newer tests.
It specifically mentions the Drone by name: “DO DT-25”
Just to add to the pile as to make the math a bit more plausable and the variation a bit smaller.
A presentation from an expert in Energetics of insensitive munitions/propellants that works for a NATO driven project, the presentation is made in the line of work and is stamped with the project logo. it is is going to way heavier than two newspapers from non official volunteer associations/organizations in military related fields. Hopefully the latter is accepted as well when Gunjob has looked into it.
There is no need to be so negative about it and come to conclusions before checking. you can always ask the tech mods in PM’s why things were decided the way they were.
for the DT-25 drone:
Maybe, except once again, not the focus of the report.
Report only considers FCO (fast cook-off), SCO (slow cook-off), BI (bullet impact), FI (fragment impact), and SR (sympathetic reaction).
Spoiler
Which, surprise surprise, none of which involve the missiles kinematic performance!
They clearly forgot to mention that to the tech mods handling the IRIS-T SLM bug reports that would result in buffs.
Would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone this gem:
Fact that other gajin employes other than tech mods get to sort through bug reports AND the fact that the aforementioned presentation is treated as primary source for someone working at gaijin shows just how insane the whole bug report system is
17 Likes
yea, i don’t think non tech mods should handle tech bug reports for rather obvious reasons
Doesn’t really matter.
I have nothing more to add here, i refer back to my previous answers:
Sure is convenient to use that as justification when it doesnt change the fact that its a single secondary source at best.
You’re just proving that gaijin is just picking and choosing what they wish to believe and doesnt actually stick to their own requirements when it comes to buffing/nerfing things.
End of the day though, arguing with you over weather it was justified of gaijin to nerf a missile based on a single dubious report isnt going to get us anywhere in getting the thing unnerfed. I just want others to have the whole information so they can know the blatant lies you guys are peddling regarding this issue.
Your own rules and the veracity of th info is irrelevant to if a bug report will be accepted or denied, and actionned upon later. All that matters is what gaijin wants to believe, and in this context, what gaijin wants to believe is that the IRIS-T sucks.
Took them a few days to nerf it off a single secondary source, but no amount of sources can get them to buff its speed or range.
This is exactly why people quit bug reporting.
12 Likes