Oh my god it’s been almost 100 messages of « the rafale structural is overperforming, the EFT is underperforming ». Can we switch to another topic or is the whining going to last 100 more messages ?
Do a report or talk about something else, it’s annoying to see the thread clogs so much every other day.
11 Likes
If people are going to engage in the topic it will generare replies.
Rafale is perfect in game which is why no one hear is complaining about it.
Rafale is over performing as proved in the data provided, however it’s up to Gaijin if they want to implement it.
When the same message is repeated by some over and over again with just a few words changed here and there it’s just annoying
Yeah let’s just say that and ignore the few dozen reports made on it
And yet it’s mostly accurate according to the data provided.
The issue is that the EFT is significantly underperforming in its G load.
Everyone knows it. However, this is a Rafale thread. The « Rafale is overperofring in g load while EFT is underperforming » discussion only originates from the fact that the EFT is underperforming. Because if you look at other planes than just those 2, the rafale is in the margin of error of the Gripen, F16s, f15s… as mentioned by someone above
So it should be discussed in the EFT thread. If you have an issue with the rafale overperforming in this area, make a goddamn report. And give values, instead of « according to the data provided », because, no, the data were definitely not provided, since there is not a report on the max structural limit of the Rafale.
5 Likes
Then was there a report made based on Typhoons structural limit? Or did Gaijin see fit to change it because Typhoon was proving to be too good at high altitude?
Yes there are reports for soft systems that arent in game or modelled correctly nothing is fundamentally wrong with Rafales flight model, Radar and avionics.
Then report it.
Or go to the EFT thread, since it’s an issue related to the EFT. My point is that this is the rafale thread. All I see is that the majority of the last dozen of messages were from EFT mains mainly complaining about the EFT, mostly repeating the same arguments over and over again, when no one actually disagreed with them.
I don’t have any issue when the the discussion isn’t stale (comparing IRL performance of both planes, in game balancing…), but it has been turning around the same point with no new significant for a long while now, and it results in the clogging of the thread.
13 Likes
6 Likes
Is there a source for the Rafael F3R which indicates the maximum G limits for a given fuel weight/loadout?
The dassault website says -3.2g/+9g but doesn’t give any additional detail.
If we assume this is at 100% internal fuel only, then that would give a 1.5x structural limit of -4.8g/+13.5g
1 Like
imo the Rafale is the best looking one, it’s all made in smooth curves, while the Typhoon looks chunky
2 Likes
Its pretty commonly stated to be able to pull 11G’s “in emergencies”, which would put it at 16.5G with the in-game modifier.
1 Like
Alright, done.
1 Like
Is there a source for this? And what is the precident for the Rafael to be treated differently to other acraft that also have an emergency load factor but don’t have it represented in game?
For instance, SAAB does actually specify the gripen can handle up to 12g under certain conditions in ermergencies also, but gaijin still has the ultimate load factor g limit as per the standard maximum g limit of +9g x 1.5
Emergency load limits are clearly intended as a “one and done” emergency manouver which the airframe can survive, but will signficantly reduce the lifespan of the airframe or possibly even make the aircraft unworthy to perform any such high g manuver again if it fails the subsequent inspection.
All rafale from F2 to F4.1 are structurally identical (depending on Rafale M and C there might be some variation)
That’s better. At least the issue will be cleared one way or the other, instead of pointlessly messaging in the thread
Yeah the source for 11G is known. As for the precedent, well it’s kind of a bit all over the place in top tier in that regard. Some (if not most) planes tend to rip at the stated x1.5 structural limit, other underperforms (or used to, like the mirage F1 for a few months after introduction, ir the EFT more recently), and other seem to overperform, like the rafale, Gripen (at least used to)…
Edit @MythicPi can you share the link to the report ?
Wikipedia has 2 sources for it, and you can find more articles mentioning it if you search something like “Rafale 11g”. I’m sure the super secret boys club the french mains have going also likely have some docs about it they could pull out.
The only other jet I know of an emergency load factor for and can test is the EFT at 12G, and its wings pop off once you clear 18G, which would be accurate if they’re using the 1.5x multiplier and the wings break when they cross their max G-load. That being said, some ppl in this thread have been adamant the game now uses time over max G-load, which if that’s the case, would imply gaijin isn’t using the 12G limit for the EFT, and is instead using the 9G limit and multiplying it up to 13.5G. So either the Rafale is overperforming massively and the EFT is accurate, or the Rafale is overperforming and the EFT is underperforming. I can’t speak for other jets idk about.
As for the Gripen, I have no idea why they arent basing its structural limits on the stated 12G emergency load factor, I also dont have the jet (yet) so I cant test it either, sorry.
Trying to discuss a relevant inaccuracy in the appropriate thread isnt “pointless” you guys just didnt want to engage with the conversation in any constructive manner simply due to the fact it would result in a nerf to the jet, which is why each of my messages was either largely ignored, or had ppl state that I performed the test wrong and they wanted more proof.
You think I wanted to go rerun the test every single time someone told me the test was inaccurate?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0FdAW9qVIz6F
8 Likes
It was pointless. Whatever the side of the argument, when I stopped watching yesterday and I checked back today the arguments had not change, but the messages counter increased by more that 150 messages, the majority being around that.
And the issue is largely over the EFT. The rafale was just an excuse to complain about it.
Now that you made the report, things can be cleared out by the devs directly and we can move on.
Not on this, I don’t remember coming across information on this specifically outside of the usual 9G specs, and brief mentions of the emergency modes from the same sources as yours
2 Likes
Typically this thread doesn’t even bring up stuff that would result in buffs either. A report is done about it, a link is dropped, and then it’s never even discussed again or we moved onto the next issue. You’d be hard pressed to find people in here talking about a certain issue repeatedly ad-nauseam even if they’re valid. 90 issues have been reported on the Rafale and they don’t include AASM reports or MICA reports. These issues are not discussed 24/7.
7 Likes
How it works in the other threads, such as the Tornado or Typhoon threads, if there is an issue discovered, it is discussed so that sources can be collaborated and a better bug report submitted.
2 Likes
Not necessary here, a submission shows up with like 6 primary sources because DirectSupport is a legend, and then we go “Man, that’s cool” and it’s done, if there’s more sources they’re shared
8 Likes
Well Eurofighter threads often bring up issues even if reports are accepted and open about it, for instance the sustained and instantaneous turn rates are acknowledged but also repeatedly brought up and discussed (not knocking on it). Priority track is also brought up repeatedly although it is acknowledged as well. Missing air to ground mode is also brought up often.
Rafale was reported to be missing lift, but it was never discussed again. Rafale was also reported to be missing air to ground modes but it was also never discussed again.
Cause at the end of the day, all we can do is report issues and then either update it by adding more sources, make a dev server thread, or find other issues to focus on and report.
4 Likes
Yes, because from hard learnt lesson from other aircraft. If we dont, they will be forgotten. Like the SHars are getting their placeholder HUDs replaced after 2.5 years and they are still a buggy mess or the fact it took 1.5 years just to get the Tornado placeholder FM partially fixed.
If we didn’t keep it discussed, we know for a fact the Typhoon we have today, is the only Typhoon we’d ever get.
Though past history has been a mixed bag, look at the Challenger 2, god knows how many reports were submitted from the tech thread, and instead of buffing it, they nerfed it, gotta love that.