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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I would suppose it helps having Gunjob to bump certain reports as reminders, but I’m not sure how the complaints would do anything in the thread, does it go back to devs for feedback? If not then it seems to be a time-waster. I know dev server threads are sent back as feedback to developers and is useful in that aspect but otherwise I’m not sure who else is listening to the Eurofighter thread besides Gunjob who is already well aware of all the Eurofighter reports. It would probably help though if Gunjob/Flame are getting assistance in obtaining sources and etc. Most recently their assistance came inadvertently from Mulatu who had obtained a primary source regarding Brimstone’s gimbal limits funny enough.
All this is to say that helping Gunjob/Flame report things or finding more sources to add to existing reports would probably go much further than making complaints in a non-dev server thread.
Literally the only reason why certain reports got actioned was because of him bugging the devs every other week.
But he has used community interest within threads to get certain things added, such as BOL on the GR4. If he can demonstrate the community wants something fixed, added or changed, then having a thread full of people saying so does help
Anyway, the point is, MythicPi found a descrepency and raised it in the appropriate thread looking for feedback, sources, etc. You’d be surprised by how many times i’ve found what I thought was an issue, only to have Gunjob or flame either provide the primary source they have showing why its that way, or a heads up that there was already an internal report for it. (heck the bug report site is so hard to navigate that sometimes ive missed public reports no matter what I tried as search terms)
With the Astérix that display aircraft’s are without weapons and probably at relatively low fuel, since the pilots almost never use after burner in French displays, staying slow and close rather than doing longer high speed approach like the Americans do
You’re correct though it doesn’t invalidate the initial point I think.
Idk about every demo but on the specific video I just posted the chevrons (AB inidcators) are visible for a good chunk of the demo. Speeds aren’t that low, and even in slow turn the pilot stays on AB to compensate for the high AoA speed bleed.
Also I can’t find it rn we’ve got a pilot interview that speciifically says they load full fuel on longer displays (over 8mins).
There is a source somewhere which notes that solo display configurations have their limits released up to 10.g or 10.5g depending on the configuration, but we don’t know what that configuration is.
Now I’ve never heard of that one, you got me curious. But tbh I doubt they’d give pilots a lower available combat g-load than what’s achievable during display (at least in A2A config). Would make no sense.
Wikipedia is not the source.
They just have easily kept a record of the display regime which used to be posted on the Rafael Solo Display website until 2022
Not sure how official it is, but this is where any reference for 10.5g comes from, usually annotated with “Solo Display”
