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”
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:
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?
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?
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.
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
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:
For comparison, Rafale’s OSF is currently missing its very wide FOS:
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.
Please don’t start
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)
anyway that was with a short research gn8
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.
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.
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?
Sadly we can only relay on the conclusion reached by the developers. As I mentioned above, should new sources become available that provide more tangible limits, then new reports can be passed for further consideration.
Unfortunately no changes will be made based on these current sources alone.
Hello. While I agree with some points you made, I still believe it’s unreasonable to completely discard the values proposed in primary sources diagrams and still use place holder values coming from the Mig23, a decades old technology compared to the rafale.
It’s be like comparing the performances of early Cold War tech to the M1 Abrams. It would seem afar more logical to give some credibility to primary sources documents(or at least give parity with the EFT using similar and (partially) French sourced technology) instead of using place holder tech from an outdated vehicle that has nothing in common
Hello
The prospect of changing the limits has not been discarded entirely, as the devs mentioned in the response, they are open to further reconsideration should other sources be located that provide more tangible values. Sadly however, the current diagrams are not sufficient for the devs to make any changes from.
Oh yes becauses the game models electronic/avionic systems on temperature conditions.
Cool you ignored the range limitiations 70km+ in game barely 20!
The ability to detect ground targets
The missing ability to guide ARHM
😂
