Why are you so hyper fixating on his example than actually disproving his point.
The flanker was just an example where did you read that he wouldn’t want the same for the other aircraft as well?
He literally explained in his comment what you should do.
So make a thread to ask to remove every tested features of planes, everything that are technically possible but were never done (good luck also proving that).
2 Likes
Of course that is not the case, this due to Rafale getting waves of buff that again solely based on Gaijin’s decision not the Bug Reporter, why would the Bug Reporter be blamed for this? It’s like, someone want their EFT got fixed, and then everyone would call them out “How dare you asking for another buff?”. At least in current meta there are always an aircraft that can counter Rafale projecting power, compared to F-14 HOWEVER, especially after 7 months, Rafale finally being worse in dogfighting. Does that sound not enough for you?
Even with Rafale can only carrying 6 missiles, wouldn’t make it stop overpowering.
Honestly, every aircraft other than Rafale and EFT are screwed up due to having a worser Avionics to go defensive. This wouldn’t be a problem if the BR Bracket be fixed ASAP, you know F-16 and MiG-29 used to bully every 3rd Gen Aircraft. Every year the problem is the same, a tight BR so everyone can feel at the top when using top of the BR vehicle.
6 Likes
Yea these are '1000s, which are also part of the F.4.1 additions.
1 Like
I think you’ve been stating things as if the Rafale doesn’t lack things that another aircraft might not have. For instance yes the Rafale does have constant 24/7 IFF in its HMD that other aircrafts besides the A-10 do not have.
But the Eurofighter in the meantime has an HMD feature that the Rafale is also supposed to have (but for whatever reason doesn’t currently get despite it being reported), and this is the fact that the Eurofighter is able to display enemy contacts through its HMD.
Example:
Stealing it from @SpectreXXI
6 Likes
Euro figher have more chaff flare more missiles better engine and better dogfight capabilities than rafale
Why did you ignore the rest of the question?
The utility of this feature is not nearly as useful as permanent passive friendly markers in SB.
Perhaps the Rafale should be removed from the game until suitable counters to it can be added.
1 Like
Because it has been addressed by others while this aspect has not.
I would not be opposed to such a solution even if others might. I’ve been long okay with the Mirage 2000-5F (provided they fix it and also remove the 2 extra Magic 2s it currently has that is unrealistic and is not wired to take them).
2 Likes
when f22…
I love how this narrative keeps getting pushed that I only want to nerf delta canards.
What if I were to tell you that I was advocating for priority track for the Eurofighter months ago? Or is priority track for the Eurofighter radar not a buff?
2 Likes
welp and all we got was TWS+ which more or less made every mechanical radar worse
good job gaijin
One good thing doesnt justify your other actions buddy, understand it well.
1 Like
Bruh can we move on ?
With pleasure.
Lets demand Proper Scorpion HMD model and reduce weight please.
5 Likes
Stuff like that takes ages im afraid
It’s interesting that you would mention it being worse at dogfighting. Who do you think made it worse at dogfighting? The whole entire bingo fuel indication in the HUD footage was pointed out by myself in a YouTube video 2-3 weeks before word had even gotten to the forums. In fact I had explicitly pointed it out to DirectSupport probably a month prior to that. I can share the chat logs if you’d like but it would best be through the forum message feature.
Once word had made it to the forum and MythicPi posted footage of the Bingo indication and Gunjob made an internal report. The first reaction of prominent Rafale advocates was to cast doubt on the validity of the report by posting carrier landing footage showing bingo fuel indicator with approximately half fuel. There was even a point that DirectSupport implied that indexing turn could have taken place at greater than 50% fuel and maybe the whole demo was without afterburner.
Keep in mind that I had already pointed out not only the bingo fuel indication but also the bingo 800 indication a month prior to any of this happening. I never received any reply to that information until he copy pasted the same carrier landing video into my DMs and said that he looked into it. When I pointed out that bingo fuel was an adjustable setting he just replied with “lmao”.
It was at this point I made my own bug report for two reasons. The first reason was that it had looked like Gunjobs report might have missed the fact that the pilot adjusts the bingo fuel warning from 800 down to 550 and that the warning then clears. It was also important to make this info public knowledge since it had also not been pointed out on the forums. The second reason is that a public bug report that is accepted warrants a public response from the developers. This is a much better approach than the issue of the flight model being resolved internally and if the nerf had been implemented due to solely gunjobs report then a lot of the community might have felt blindsided.
I think what is important to note is that throughout this entire process of trying to cast doubt on Gunjobs initial report that DirectSupport already knew about Bingo 800. And that when he looked into the original video, after I had pointed it out, that he hadn’t considered the portion of the video where the pilot clears the warning by adjusting it down to be relevant.
5 Likes
And this is your whole issue and why you don’t make any sense. You only have the perspective of someone who plays sim. Except that WarThunder is not a simulator it is a “Realistic War Game” not a War simulator. You complain about a lot of things in the game because they don’t fit “operationnal state” of some vehicles but you represent like 5-10% of WT community and you complain about things that are totally irrelevant in RB and AB(IFF HMD for Rafale for example) that are the most played modes of this game. You complain about vehicles having some equipment they didn’t have in service but if you knew the game you’d know Gaijin lives on a “If it can do it, we can add it” policy. And most of all you blame players for aligning with Gaijin rules by saying “You make faulty reports about not in service capabilities” but that’s the fun part because it’s actually authorized to do so. So all you whining hold no ground as you only live by the Simulator Battles code and don’t consider anything else. If you wanted to play a simulator go make your own or go play games that actually are simulators.
Leave Rafale alone except the STR report most reports are sourced and accepted by gaijin according to their bug reporting/suggestion rules so everything about Rafale is perfectly legit and you are just mad that you can’t play simulator battles the way you want which is not how a game works you bend to how it works or you don’t play.
4 Likes
What are my other actions that you take issue with? In relation to Eurocanard fighters or Rafale specifically?
(Mods feel free to delete this but I’m curious to know.)
I think you are missing the point and making the issue more about me than the plane or the game. I mention sim specific issues because that is the game mode that I play. Just because I mainly play sim doesn’t mean I’m not familiar with other game modes. I have even gone so far to play Rafale in Air RB with my sim setup and was able to average around 5:1 kills per death and 2.4 kills per battle in spite of limitations imposed by HOTAS and first person view.
Gaijins policy on adding or not adding features is not clear cut. I point out the instances of where Gaijin has not added something due to game balancing concerns because it shows that there is justification to not add some capability at a certain time or to deny adding something because it was only tested. You see the first situation in the way that Brimstone has been implemented in game with the justification being that a fire and forget lock on after launch missile would be incredibly unbalanced in ground game modes. You see the second situation with the German Eurofighter not receiving PIRATE in spite of them testing it and it being a plug-in option for all of their current Eurofighters.
Did you see what the immediate reaction to the STR report was from some of the bug reporters here? Their first reaction was to immediately try to cast doubt on it by showcasing videos of other landings. The first guy completely missed the bingo fuel warning the first time, and DirectSupport also missed it a 2nd time after it was directly pointed out to him.
Or he was just being dishonest on the forum which would be consistent with what he has told me in private. The guys perspective is that he needs to advocate for pre-emptive buffs because otherwise Gaijin shows preferential treatment to major nations and Britain. (Because he argues the the devs count Britain as a major nation.)
If you actually look at some of the bug reports you will see some rather silly things. At one point DirectSupport argued that the Mirage 2000s instantaneous turn rate should be 90 degrees in 0.7 seconds; that works out to roughy 128 degrees per second. To his credit he did eventually withdraw this one; but just the fact that he had never stopped to consider how ridiculous that number is or the process of how he arrived to it reveals something.
If you look at the MICA reports that have since been thrown out, you’ll see that it strings 2-3 sources together. The whole report hinges on the idea that the MICA needs to retain enough energy to pull 30G at 13KM and that because it didn’t reach Mach 3 while launching at a sea level target that the missile is missing performance. It appears that he tested no other launch parameters except the one that gave him the result he wanted. If the test was repeated against a reference target at higher altitude don’t you think the results might be different? Do you think the large long chord wings might differentiate the required speed in order to reach 30G when compared to a Magic II?
Nobody has any idea what the reference target or launch conditions for the MICA 60-80km claims either. If you look at sources for other missiles you will see that maximum range is usually at high altitude and with a cooperative target. The reference data for AMRAAM is for Sea Harrier at just below Mach at 25,000 feet and firing at head on target at Mach 1.5 at 30,000 feet. I don’t even think AMRAAM matches performance in Sea Harrier document but I have yet to test it in game.
If you actually model the most likely scenario for the MICA range in game; 40,000 feet and head on engagement at Mach 1.5+ I would be willing to bet that the MICA does meet it’s range claims. And the only scenario it does not is due to a 50km self-destruction limit and not due to kinematics.
3 Likes
Bruh why would you change the test conditions? The test he makes is based on a real life MICA VL test where all conditions were known and the numbers of Mach 3 max speed and 30G of maneuverability ay 13km were the results of the test fire. No need to test other conditions as the numbers were obtained in the same conditions he makes his test as far as i know.
And what do you base yourself to claim the 80km range “most likely scenario” is to be at 40000 feet at 1.5M of engagement speed?(Which seems highly unlikely for test conditions as it is very rare that a plane will launch a missile at such altitude and speed anyway in acxtive service/conflict) As far as i know MICA has slightly shorter burntime than AMRAAM with a higher DeltaV, it’s lighter, and overall smaller and maybe has a tad bit more drag due to it’s shape and fins but it should perform similarly to AIM 120A in the same Sea Harrier launch conditions overall.
1 Like