antiterror13
Brigadier
but you said it was a "CGI" ... why would you analyze anything from a "CGI" ? .. you just contradict yourself to suit your bias and trolling
PLA Anti-Air Missile (SAM) systems
- Thread starter FORBIN
- Start date
but you said it was a "CGI" ... why would you analyze anything from a "CGI" ? .. you just contradict yourself to suit your bias and trolling
By78, if you think someone has made a very bad call, attack their argument, don't imply any physical ailments you think they might have (or mental or otherwise).
nlalyst, if you make blatantly obvious bad calls like that, you open yourself up to getting dogpiled. Choose your battles.
Thanks @Bltizo.
For the record, I wasn't picking a fight. I honestly believed (and still believe) those photos were CGI. The vehicle illumination seemed oddly uniform with hardly any specular reflections. The details on the vehicle appear to exceed the detail on the ground surrounding it, as if it was artificially implanted. The texture on the driver's mirrors looked rather off. So did the specular reflections on the optics box. Edge contrast everywhere on the vehicle is superb. Not a hint of aberration. The front to back of the vehicle is equally sharp, evidence of a wide depth of field. But to achieve that, one has to step down the lens to higher f numbers, which reduces the amount of light coming through to the image chip, which in turn can lead to blurring/loss of contrast in video. While achieving such sharpness with a camera may be difficult, it is actually very easy to achieve with image rendering, and is often a tell-tale sign of CGI. After watching the video, I am even more convinced the segment is CGI.
The sequence where the antenna mount swivels into position struck me as particularly jarring. Not a trace of settling behavior. If you step through the video frame by frame, the details on the antenna in rotation are surprisingly clear. The little blur there is present seems more an artifact of video encoding, than the camera.
Just because a video contains actual footage is no proof that some segments are not CGI.
I don't expect you to change your opinions, but I do expect some common courtesy and ability to articulate one's thoughts without resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks.
For the record, I wasn't picking a fight. I honestly believed (and still believe) those photos were CGI. The vehicle illumination seemed oddly uniform with hardly any specular reflections. The details on the vehicle appear to exceed the detail on the ground surrounding it, as if it was artificially implanted. The texture on the driver's mirrors looked rather off. So did the specular reflections on the optics box. Edge contrast everywhere on the vehicle is superb. Not a hint of aberration. The front to back of the vehicle is equally sharp, evidence of a wide depth of field. But to achieve that, one has to step down the lens to higher f numbers, which reduces the amount of light coming through to the image chip, which in turn can lead to blurring/loss of contrast in video. While achieving such sharpness with a camera may be difficult, it is actually very easy to achieve with image rendering, and is often a tell-tale sign of CGI. After watching the video, I am even more convinced the segment is CGI.
The sequence where the antenna mount swivels into position struck me as particularly jarring. Not a trace of settling behavior. If you step through the video frame by frame, the details on the antenna in rotation are surprisingly clear. The little blur there is present seems more an artifact of video encoding, than the camera.
Just because a video contains actual footage is no proof that some segments are not CGI.
I don't expect you to change your opinions, but I do expect some common courtesy and ability to articulate one's thoughts without resorting to lazy ad hominem attacks.
Much higher quality versions. These are quite possibly the most realistic CG images a troll with macular degeneration will ever see.
P.S. If you think a troll may be offended by this post, don't forget to hit that report button.
Looks real to me, and we already know NORINCO has tested this years ago in a truck.
Both search and fire control radars look like AESAs both obviously, air cooled. The power source for the radars are mounted in the back of the tracked vehicle.
The missile is obviously a PL-12 from its appearance here, and its also obvious in the -12 of Skydragon 12 or SD-12 or Tianlong 12. The missile is also obviously active radar guided, but the fire control radar is there to bring the missile to the catch basket of its radar seeker.
broadsword
Brigadier
That's the range of the land based FM3000. The placard near the VLS with the quadpackers say FM3000N, the N implying its naval.
The FM3000 looks like this.
Weirdly it does not look like the missiles on the VLS.
It does however look a lot like the Russian 9M96.
The 9M96 has a VLS system that looks like this.
Coincidence? Cold launch when quad packing means the missiles are nearer the door, while hot launch with quad packing like ESSM means the missiles are at the bottom of the VLS.
9M96E has a range of 40km, with the extended version up to 120km. That's close enough to the FM3000, although I think the FM3000 can be extended, and to the LY70, which is another missile with similar dimensions and purpose.
The 9M96 family are the missiles that equip ships like the Admiral Gorshkov class, and various modern Russian corvettes.
Last edited:
Per my previous post SD-12 is a different missile than you are thinking of. It is a 57E6 style. However, as you mention the radar system itself is the same as what was shown previously. Additional you can see that the EO system was removed in the new 6x6 vehicle which it a definite sign of a different missile (guidance)
