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.
3 Likes
Yeah it gets tiring to a point.
12 months. Give or take. Probably give.
5 Likes
How is your name even possible?
Pretty sure MBDA is a registered trademark lul
(Just wondering as I saw stuff happening for less)
3 Likes
eagle seems to be going after the eurocanards this patch:(
Rafale Mach never exceed speed incorrect
2 Likes
I kinda get it, so currently the rafale c in game is based off limits for the rafale a?
makes sense why it would be getting nerfed
and yes i see the argument that rafale a apparently has the same flight characteristics as rafale c, but it makes sense that operational aircraft have stricter limits
Don’t know, named myself in December 2023 after reading about great French engineering and thinking it will become OP in WT.
Operational aircraft has stricter limits due to RAM coating.
The day Gaijin adds RAM coating and actually models it they can strict the flight performance, until then this type of people can sod off, then again most plane will have stricter flight performance as well.
2 Likes
Don’t worry. Flanker is up next.
1 Like
Oh my trying to focusing on “fixing” those vehicles without actually pushing the reasons aka “features” to balance them surely benefits certain people :)
The plane turns too well. Simple as that.
Shameless plug to get attention on reports again:
Rafale’s IRST lacking air-to-surface mode // Gaijin.net // Issues
Talios targeting pod missing black/white contrast channel // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
Went back to doing more research, a primary source was found for the specific variant of Rafale F3R of being capable of Mach 1.4 supercruise.
7 Likes