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.
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:
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
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.
It’s funny how you act like it’s a crusade. I’m waiting to see how you can actually argue for the weight of the Rafale C, when it’s pretty clear that 9.5t and 10t values are just rounded up values, and the only currently known source with precise values for the F3R* is the one given by the BEA report from @Macron-Spokesman’s report
Rafale M weight is indeed incorrect, but it’s not as if a report for it was not initially made.
