And how can this be used as a source, then?
There is nothing explicitly pointing to +/-70° being the azimuth limits. In fact, if you knew what “PPI” and “B-Scope” actually shows, you would realise that the IRST azimuth limits aren’t being shown here at all.
I think they should at least be sufficient to prove that the IRST of the rafale should be cabale of of than 180º gimbal, since the diagrams clearly show it (even if we should not get exact and precise values form diagrams, the 180º limit is easy to confirm). However in game the total gimbal is still far underestimated.
Even if the exact values of the report can not be accepted, i still believe a 180º values should at the very least be considered
To be honest, it feels as though the developers are trying to avoid a large technological disparity between the Eurofighter and Rafale even if it was inevitable lol
Should more sources be located to corroborate and agree with these values and shore up support for such limits, then it very well may be. Simply this is just the outcome of the currently presented sources.
So a diagram from the DGA’s optronic department (the department which directed the development of OSF) which explicitly state “OSF field of view” doesn’t actually show the field of view for OSF?
Can you not understand the mental gymnastics going on here?
Furthermore, the IRST specifically is an optronic ball that rotates, if the manufacturer so desired the IRST could have a 360° field of search in azimuth were it not for redundancy. So there is certainly no technological limit.
As explained a couple of times now, currently the developers do not plan to make any changes based on these sources alone without additional sources to confirm more tangible values.
Whilst I appreciate the frustration, without new sources, this current report and its sources have already been reviewed and the report concluded.
A new report with new sources is more than welcome.
Could you please respond to this then:
Just so we can be sure there aren’t any double standards going on here.
I have already responded and you have quoted that response in your post here. This is one source the developers used and was one shared on the closure of the report.
I do not have all sources the developers used to model the IRST of the Eurofighter or Rafale.
Would you please be able to get back to us with the sources used by the developers? Because based on all the information available, it appears the devs are giving the Eurofighter preferential treatment to try and not make it completely worse than the Rafale.
No aircraft has been given " preferential treatment" and the Rafale has actually already had more corrections deployed than the Eurofighter in total to date. Work has been roughly equal on both.
Should you have more sources to show the IRST is somehow incorrect on the Eurofighter and wish to submit a report on that, the developers will need to provide whatever they used to decide the values in game if they don’t agree with whatever new information you have within that report.
However this is a Rafale thread, not a Eurofighter thread.
Then could you please pass this report: Community Bug Reporting System so we can all see what the devs respond with?
Because this presentation is not a source, and whoever rejected the report has no understanding of what “B-Scope” or “PPI” actually presents to the pilot in the Eurofighter.
This report has already been responded too.
A new report with new information is more than welcome.
The person who responded has no idea what they are talking about. 120° x 45° is the maximum that can be achieved with dual scanning mechanisms. “B-Scope” and “PPI” also does not show just the IRST but rather all data collected across a 140° frontal arc; ergo, the azimuth limits for the IRST are not shown in the attached presentation.
The bug report manager has rejected the report based on their own misunderstandings and misinterpretations not any actual facts.
What about the HMD on the Rafale or the 2 extra missile Pylons?
That isnt preferential treatment?
It was never in service with the French Air Force and was used by India,
so if the EF gets “preferential treatment” why didnt it get the extra Aim120’s on the inner wing pylons or the double Pylons for them, that are in the files, or the IRST on the german EF.
Just rename it to the Indian variant then if it makes you feel any better…
Then Britain won’t be able to get it lol. Besides, most people would have preferred Micas buffed anyway.
Because there’s no evidence of them ever being mounted? Just like double underbelly Micas for the Rafale:
But it makes the Eurofighters unique to each other :))))
just saying that the EF side of the communtiy feels like that about the rafale as well
I honestly hope that britain isnt getting the Indian Rafale or Su-30MKI, they dont need it and dont deserve it.
I mean they already have the gripen and EF, if they would also get the Rafale and Su-30 there would be no need to play any other nations, at that point we could also give them the f-15 f-16, f-18, Abrams, Leapard, T-90…
…I think you get it.
we need both the EF and Rafale to get send into Ukrain so somebody can make pictures of those loadouts, for the WT buff ^^
Nah fr tho. Ukraine already leaked us an Abrams manuals, a (newer) EFT manual or Rafale manual doesn’t sound so bad.
Idk about that, when I said Id rather have the MICA’s fixed but limited to 6 and no HMD on the French Rafale, since thatd be the most realistic way to model it and would actually get the MICA’s fixed, I got like 200 hate comments and a giant target painted on my back from that point on lmao.
Subtrees were a mistake, they dilute tech tree flavor and effectively force mixed battles, which nobody likes afaik. But at this point they’re here to stay and itd be kinda silly if France was the only nation that got to remain almost exclusively unique.
Wouldnt matter, would be inadmissible for bug reports.
dont they both use the same radar?
