Report was replied to.
1 Like
Pretty sure I know exactly who made that reply considering how fast this was replied to and the information they provided. Added to that, they once again deliberately misinterpret the information in their reply.
This is completely useless as a rebuttal, particularly since the actual official brochure from MBDA specifies DDM-NG has a spherical FOV but not full spherical coverage around the Rafale.
Spoiler
This is a deliberate misreading of the text, it LITERALLY states “360 deg in azimuth.”, states nothing about full spherical coverage.
This doesn’t not state spherical coverage, it states 360 deg coverage, not the same a spherical.
At the very least I appreciate you bug reporting it.
Discussed it with the bug manager that closed the bug report and we’ve agreed to leave it to a third party to conclude as we have a disagreement on source validity.
A secondary and tertiary source state its MAWS coverage is omnidirectional, a primary source states its not. Multiple other secondary sources state it to be 360 deg which is not spherical.
There does not seem to be any argument over DDM-NG having blind spots, the question is over if the remainder of the SPECTRA system completely covers those blind spots, and specifically how large the DDM-NG’s blind spots are.
Gaijin prefers tertiary data for a lot of things I don’t think your odds are good here.
Gaijin prefers russian data for the f-5… gee i wonder why they might have issues regarding primary sources.
3 Likes
He is incessant (Mythic)
1 Like
Maybe some people would like to go over the EFT to keep him occupied for a bit. I have heard the IRST may or may not be overperforming, would be a shame someone reports it…
6 Likes
Its significantly underperforming in most if not all aspects, similarly to the Rafales, pretty sure both have been bug reported extensively.
2 Likes
The IRST is not overperforming
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZDBeRSwcKGrq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c5GdDg8imjnq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jora2udnR4xG
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yLTLXyw6s9tj
Because MythicPi is whining doesn’t mean we need to stoop to his level
Both aircraft are missing alot of stuff and it seems next update both the Eurofighter and Rafales radar will be improved in how they scan
9 Likes
Funny story: I also hear tell of a new Discord server whose sole mission is nerfing the Eurofighter’s flight model and there is even a tech mod (I genuinely don’t know who btw) feeding this server with various documents from the British archives. So indeed, maybe some people would like to go over the EFT more…
2 Likes
Seeing as there are entire discords and groups put together with the sole purpose of buffing it I suppose this balances things out?
1 Like
I mean, I’m not necessarily saying its a bad thing. British mains are the most notorious for not disclosing information that would otherwise result in nerfs. I’m just here to watch the show xD
1 Like
Not really. British put out bug reports that gets stuff nerfed just as frequently as France. Arguably more so when it comes to ground.
You can think Mythic is an utter wanker (I do), but the Brits generally do report overperformance when the documentation is available. EFT seems to be about the one thing they’re ignoring the overperformance relative to other platforms, but I somehow suspect Gaijin wouldn’t accept reports on relative known performance differences without 30 sources on each platform.
You want to know who hides Rubbish most? Look at the Americans and Germans.
3 Likes
Recently, sure but it’s not as if there haven’t been reports of this nature for various aspects of the F-5 / F-20, F-14, F-16 etc. in the past.
And on the other hand there are obvious issues with the modeling of the both generation Harrier / AV-8s.
6 Likes
Do you have a server link?
British mains have had enough documents on the Challenger 2’s armour to report it for a while now. Spoiler: it’s egregiously over-performing.
They will also complain endlessly about and make reports trying to buff the Challenger 2’s ready rack when in fact it is quite accurate:
These are what come to mind for ground, as I generally couldn’t care for planes.
Eh, American mains typically aren’t anywhere near as coordinated enough to be withholding nerfs. As for German mains - to be honest, they don’t really know what’s going on in the first place lol.
1 Like
No, but I would love one :)
I’m sitting on a few, yet to be written reports that may broadly be considered nerfs; But the issues are mostly more or less a lack of the underpinning mechanics being sufficiently modeled (or otherwise being genericized) or too simplified for the required changes to make much of a difference.
For example;
- The FoR (Field of Regard) of, Pre-lockon non-Slaved SEAM enabled Sidewinders should be larger than it is due to seeker nutation, and these is even a second pattern that improves the poling rate and further expands the diameter of the search volume.
- JDAM / GBU-15 / Paveway II & -III Flight profiles are wrong (Control Surfaces unlock early / GPS signal acquisition occurs late, lack of loft / trajectory shaping dependent upon release conditions).
- The MJU-7/B (1x2" Standard Caliber Flares) Burn time is wrong, but also underperforms against “SWIR band” seekers.
- 2.75" M247 HEAT warheads Performance is probably erroneous / odd, and likely has too high penetration and lacks blast / Frag effects.
- A-7E should not have access to the GPU-5/A.
- AN/AAS-45 LANA (found on the A-7E & -7K) is a navigation pod and not able to be directed unless slaved to the A2G radar; which is not currently modeled.
- Various station & airframe, alternate loadings of MER / TERs have additional restrictions on neighboring stations’ loading configurations and assorted errors that would mostly cause downloading across the board (e.g. 6 stores per MER to 4 / 3 / 2x, or from 3 to 2 / 1x (useful in specific cases to increase separation from neighbors ) stores per TER) in order to ensure clean separation under all conditions.
- Snake-eye High Drag Kit’s maximum release speed should be 500kts /~.75 Mach. Whichever is lower, not Mach 1. (Which the HD “AIR” kits fix, and there are other issues like a lack of the M117R and asorted others).
- Lifespan of the early (Black) variants of the DSU-33 Nose fuse (as many JDAMs have on their 3D model ), limit their time of flight. (Though this was ignored when appended to the report on the issue), and of course should cause the bomb / dispenser to airburst, on proximity to the ground.
- TNTe of various explosives does not match known sources, though this could be chalked up to revised compositions and mixing techniques, as many sources disagree significantly.
- Various bombs should not be able to take delay fuse settings due to the shock generated by ground impact causing them to go “high order”.
- F-16 CAT I , -II & -III FLCS modes are not implemented, and as such has unrestricted performance regardless of mounted stores.
2 Likes
I wish that was the case. I’ve got a pile of documents which talk about the SR(L) 4026 requirements, but on multiple occasions now documents that should have contained detailed armour information for the Challenger 2 (along with the Leopard 2 / Abrams) have had the relevant section removed from the archived copy of the documents. Which given the subject matter is not particularly surprising I guess.
I know yourself and some others would quite happily see the Challenger 2 nerfed to SR(L) 4026 levels of protection, however when you have documents saying stuff like this it becomes clear that doing so wouldn’t be accurate:
its Chobham Armour would initially [i.e. before stretch armour is considered] give turret protection levels of well over 500mm against KE and 800mm against CE attack
There is also the matter of a mid/late 90s MOD financial report stating that there was a £6m increase in Challenger 2 cost, due to the armour requirements being changed (unfortunately with no further explanation about what the change was). So no I do not have enough information to accurately report the Challenger 2’s armour, and until that changes I would rather avoid another M735 situation.
Also considering that @Fireball_2020 used documents I provided to significantly increase (i.e. nerf) the weight of all Challenger series tanks, I don’t think it is accurate to portray us as only buffing things.
It is true that the charge bin by the side of the gun is referred to as the ready charge bin. However, British documents strongly imply that they consider the charge bins behind the loader to also be part of the ready rack, and various videos online show the loader taking charges from those bins with no great difficulty. Gaijin also seem to think the chieftain is accurately modelled with the charge bins behind the loader being first stage ammo storage. As the same ammo storage arrangement is used on the Challenger series there is an inconsistency there.
9 Likes