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
I think theyre mostly just angry at me and taking it out on every other potential nation group there is that they can remotely associate me with, which is why theyve taken this extremely elitist attitude and started badmouthing most other nations, so I apoligize on that front.
Seems to have mostly started since they seem to perceive me as a Eurofighter purist/fanboy and therefore can “get back at me” by attacking the EFT and EFT related nations, despite the fact I’ve said over and over again that I love the Rafale (and 4th gen jets in general), and have played multiple nations to high/top tier, mostly splitting my time between France and Russia as of late when playing air battles.
I have never seen a nations main react so violently to the idea of a historical nerf, particularly a relatively minor one like in the case of the MAWS on the Rafale, as in this thread.
1 Like
Get with your source for the information and let’s find it 😎
1 Like
You already know what I think so I won’t try to argue about it here, but I will just finish by saying:
- I’ve yet to see anything definitive that suggests SR(L) 4026 was exceeded
- I’ve yet to see any definitive figure for the ready rack in production CR2s outside of 4 APFSDS
To be fair, I forgot about that. Was it significant, though? I can’t find the report now. Oh well. Conversation for another time and place.
If you ever “find” the link, I’ll be here :))
3 Likes
Oh, no, those are correct (although I have doubts passive ranging is going to be a thing).
But other aspects, like FOV, might be incorrect. Who knows. But because not everyone is an ass, the people aware of that are looking into it with other people that have done reports on the EFT if contradicting sources are available before going to whine on the forums to ask for people to do the reports for them.
We’ve (I) already done everything that can be done without getting some of us banned from this place and possibly being put in front of the Bundeswehr’s higher-ups, considering they still haven’t made even the docs from early 1980s public since they like keeping secrets. The one time we had a chance to make Leopard 2s mantlet imprevious to any sort of Kinetic and Chemical fire this game has and will have to offer, we got duped by the Canadian MoD into thinking the info can be used, just to be told by BAAINBw that it ain’t :p
2 Likes
Just do it … Don’t let your dreams be dreams …
7 Likes
well thats an lie if i ever saw one
most of our stuff is underpeforming
not realy, because german stuff is underperforming, would love for you guys to give examples of where we are withholding nerfs in the ground department, air i cant speak as much about since we dont realy have a modern air anymore and most is handled by the brits in that apartment
Genuinely factually incorrect. Unless Gaijin believes it’s a “marketing lie”
1 Like
Hey @Smin1080p_WT ,
Sorry to bother you, but I have a very quick question concerning this report: Community Bug Reporting System . I fail to understand how this (quite incoherent and vague source) is used for the PIRATE IRST field of search:
However, this very clear and coherent source for the Rafale’s OSF IRST (from the French government’s technology and procurement optronic department, no less!) is not able to be used:
Spoiler
Here is another primary (different author but from the DGA’s optronic department again) which once again proves the very wide field of search of OSF:
Seems like a double standard, no?
1 Like
It’s an image of the IRST MFD screen (in an official marketing presentation from EADS), which shows a scan width of +/-70° selected. What is “incoherent and vague” about that?
Yeah I can’t see why those wouldn’t be accepted. Has the report been outright rejected or just not actioned yet?
3 Likes
Outright rejected.
It doesn’t explicitly define +/-70° as the azimuth limits. A separate excerpt from the same EADS presentation indicates the azimuth limits are in fact much smaller:
Get a protractor, measure the “semi-scan width” and you will get 140°.
Yes it is indeed possible to select a smaller scan pattern for the IRST (the datasheet says it can scan “the whole field of regard or in a selectable volume”). That page also shows the radar scanning a smaller volume than it’s maximum scan width.
That seems odd.
2 Likes
Well, since my comment got removed (I thought I would be safe), I will cite a separate source - Hayne’s “RAF TYPHOON Owner’s Workshop Manual”. Anyway, back to the excerpt:
PPI is the “Plan Position Indicator” and presents all data not just the IRST. I will send you the relevant page on Discord then hopefully we can continue the discussion here.