6 Likes
Suspect more changes could come, the high speed is still ridiculous and hasn’t changed much, so still Mach 2.4 rafale
Fortunately this was what needed to happen as it was overperforming in highspeed high altitude situations, unfortunate how it was done.
I don’t think this will be the only change:
It’s actually quite minor,
You can see that the left 0ft/s line is still wayyyy past any design limit
1 Like
So, it’s the dev’s fault. How typical…
Anyway, if the plane had 9871kg with pilot and ammo, then it should have had about 9670kg empty.
That’s almost 400kg more than it currently has.
I booted up an air rb game against bots in dev-server, was able to still hit Mach 1.9 with full fuel and loadout quickly.
Finally. Took them long enough to fix that
Cuts downt he supercruise to below 1.25…
This hasn’t been missing. As soon as Gunjob made his internal report Vizenfer was responding with the same video you sent me in DMs at the same time. Both of your strategies was to hope nobody noticed that the pilot adjusted the warning to 800 and made it go away.
Why would two identical planes have different amounts of unusable fuel? Is French craftsmanship that shoddy?
So let me get this straight; the Rafale is so exquisitely made and designed that it can do Mach 1.4 without afterburner…but also Dassault cannot install fuel pumps or control fuel tank dimensions well enough to maintain consistent capacity?
It’s laughable.
Assuming intentions, I won’t even bother to explain why you’re wrong here, just know that the only reason I ever bothered to respond to you in DMs regarding this is because Zayf was MIA otherwise I would have left it up to him, and normally he defers to you and listens to your reasoning as I’ve noticed before. The fact that you haven’t put two and two together is absurd, why would I leave flight performance bug reporting for the Rafale completely up to Zayf if he was constantly listening to you and taking your cues and my intention wasn’t to have the Rafale realistically modeled? Be for real.
At the end of the day, I really don’t care. I presented the difference in weights in my reports, gave all the sources, and left it up to developers to decide how they want to handle it. It seems you miss the purpose of what bug-reporting is, which is to present all available sources, highlight the discrepancies, and leave it up to developers on how they handle the information and also how they handle discrepancies.
I’ve never even had a direct message with Zayf and I do not think I’ve shared any discords with him. So how is a guy whom I have real interaction with beyond YouTube comments be considered “deferring” to me?
At best his bug report using HUD footage mimicked a technique I used in regards to the Su-27. The bug report that I made utilizing HUD footage was rejected on grounds that tech mods can’t accept it as a source.
However when it came to the Rafale this policy was basically ignored due to having a favorable relationship with a tech mod. This is also why a lot of other Rafale reports appear to have escaped basic scrutiny.
The whole point that you care about is making the Rafale as powerful as possible in the game. This is readily apparent to basically any observer and is something you have more or less directly stated in the past.
In fact your public facing opinions are deliberately meant to move the needle in favor of the Rafale and it’s performance in-game whether or not you truly believe what you are saying.
1 Like
Also, this is laughably false. Rafale reports were probably the most scrutinized reports in the past year, and Gaijin staff are able to internally comments on the reports and give their reasoning as to what is wrong or faulty with the report with an adversarial process, and they are still able to. Probably the most scrutinized report was this:
MICA missile underperforming in turn rate // Gaijin.net // Issues
A nice thread made that implicates the Rafale, Eurofighter, and other potential aircraft.
1 Like
Ouch
I totally missed the 800 part initially. I argued in good faith. I also (relatively) quickly accepted the explanation when it was pointed out. I only initially argued with the 800 referring to kg or something else iirc. I initially had no clue about this report and implementation before it was discussed, as I did not and still don’t know much about FM. I looked at the video for the first time pretty much just before I started arguing (because obviously I have my biases). You still make it look like there’s a conspiracy somewhere when there literally is not…
As the saying goes, you should assume people are stupid rather than conspirators (or something like that).
Unsuable fuel, different oil levels, pilot mass being different, margin of error, etc… can totally account for a roughly 100kg mass difference between two “identical” aircrafts - that’s less than 2% difference and a lot of potential variables. In the end, both estimates put the mass of the aircraft at below 9500kg, In the end, devs could just use the worse estimate of both (if they did not already did that). Even if we take into account that margin of error, it’s still quite likely that the plane is indeed below 9500t and not anywhere near 10t as some argue.
Arguing against this BEA report is pretty laughable when it’s quite literally one of the more authoritative source that made the effort of giving precise values instead of simply rounding like many brochures - you know, just like they do with engine thrust for example
Quite literally. I feel like I always say the same thing and he keeps rehashing the same thing
On another subject, since thread was cleaned on the subject of top speed, wasn’t the top speed of the Rafale of Mach 1.9 established to be a limit of the RAM coating of the air intakes ? I believe there’s a report on that since RAM coating is currently not modeled in game. Or are people here arguing that the limit is actually aerodynamical ?
That would mean that, aside from the high speed drag/thrust still being off the chart (but partially explained by the devs as being a limitation of their game engine, most likely delta wing related at tropopose altitude), the top speed of the rafale theoretically can exceed Mach 2. I’ve seen here and there potential pilot testimony where they claimed they were able to break the Mach 2 barrier with in service rafales - which is discutable (RAM coating) - and even if those testimonies were true, that would not be reportable either way. However I still think it’s somewhat relevant to the discussion that some might argue that the rafale should be aerodynamically limited to Mach 1.9 from my understanding, when it’s rather a structural (if you can call RAM coating structural) limitation. That would mean that rafale going to Mach 2+ if you ignore RIP speed might not be completely bonkers, especially since, I believe, the M88 thrust charts go above Mach 1.9, so it would not be engine limited
1 Like
You missed the following bullet points.
-
You claimed to have looked into it when Vizender posted his video on the forums.
-
You also went out of your way to cast doubt on Gunjob’s internal report by making the argument that Bingo Fuel was actually 50%
-
You tried to make the same argument at the same time in my messages as well.
-
At some point you accused me of deliberately hiding that the MiG-29 was over-performing based on a brochure that you sent me. I had actually tested the MiG-29 against the brochure and had sent you the results a long time ago; so this was also just an outright lie.
The issue isn’t that you knew about the bingo warning and decided to do nothing about it. The issue is that when someone else pointed out the issue in a public fashion and you had an even more clear picture than they appeared to have…you decided to double down on trying to obfuscate the truth.
This is also something you continue to do with the claim that Zayf usually defers to me when it comes to flight model considerations. I have never corresponded with him outside of the occasional YouTube comment so it is actually impossible for him to defer to me.
2 Likes
Yeah it gets tiring to a point.
12 months. Give or take. Probably give.
3 Likes
We’re not done, though. Next step weight and finally sustained G envelope.