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.
Heard from what…Typhoons PIRATE is barely performing.
No 70 mile detection range
No ability to guide ARHM
Cant detect ground targets…
Sure sounds like it’s overperforming
2 Likes
PIRATE’s field of search (FOS) is certainly over-performing. At best it should have a FOS of 120° x 45° as opposed to the 140° x 80° it has been erroneously given:
PIRATE should also have significantly degraded performance in tropical conditions since it only operates in the LWIR band. This is from Sofradir which should be considered the most authoritative source concerning infrared technology:
Spoiler
For comparison, Rafale’s OSF is currently missing its very wide FOS:
Spoiler
It also operates in both the MWIR and LWIR spectral bands, and should therefore have greater performance over a more diverse range of weather conditions.
PIRATE is quite out-dated technology. It’s rather funny that a consortium of three of some of Europe’s most technologically proficient nations still produced an inferior IRST to France alone.
7 Likes
Please don’t start
5 Likes
Well if this is true then all he can do is buff it.
More like 150°x60° and 3-5µm and 8-11µm (MWIR and LWIR)
Spoiler
anyway that was with a short research gn8
2 Likes
1 Like
Hello
The developers rejected this report as it provides no values and the drawings themselves present on many of these documents may simply be visual illustrations and not accurate or representative (to scale) limits. As such, no action can be taken with just these sources alone.
Regarding the separate matter of the EFT IRST, not every source used to reach the concluded outcome in game may be presented on the closure of a report. Sadly this is not always possible or practical. So some sources used (whatever may be most relevant) can sometimes be presented with the response.
Should more sources become available for the Rafale’s IRST limits, then new reports can be passed again for further consideration by the devs.
1 Like
Two separate documents (primary) were used. Developers have no problem using the same method to figure out radar gimbal limits in other reports, so there’s an inconsistency in that aspect.
1 Like
So “OSF field of view” doesn’t actually mean “OSF field of view” and the DGA is not a reliable source as they somehow wouldn’t have access to such information?
And they say a picture speaks a thousand words…
Would you be able to please show us the other sources used for PIRATE’s field of search then?
3 Likes