I love this photo
There is indeed quite literally nothing relying on “guesses” in the bug report.
Sometimes, it looks like even Tech Mods don’t read the bug reports.
Or perhaps it’s the tale as old as time of Tech Mods being biased against France …
1 Like
holy quality
1 Like
*Just a matter of finding a tech mod who conveinently really likes French vehicles
You gotta be kidding me
3 Likes
@TheKnightOfZero @MightyBaozi @Pacifica
Hello, I apologize for contacting you again. However, I would like to ask for your help.
Despite repeated warnings, people are attacking each other again and straying from the topic.
We would appreciate it if you could mediate before the confusion starts again.
It’s not guesses and calculations if it is literally stated what the current installed engine provides.
1 Like
It’s not guesses tho.
- Etape 2 produces 150 more daN : That is stated by a primary source. No guess here
- Etape 1 curve is known (and it’s not a guess since we shared it to the devs already). 150 more daN is 2% more. It’s just basic maths and doesn’t contradict anything
- Improvement up to 15% (in certain conditions) is also stated by sources
Calculations are totally okay for bug reports. They help paint a better picture. Guesses aren’t. There’s no guesses in this report.
But you know where guesses were made ? When devs acknowledged the report for Mach 1.4 supercruise (that came from completely different sources btw) but couldn’t get it to work with the wacky game engine so they had to guess values to get it close
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8Dgnlk2jsPDu?comment=S5nlUs7US34aJQpuLKidEOUw
You know what else is more guesses than sources ? Half of the EFT reports (Some people that were actively trying to report it correctly really had a hard time lol)
3 Likes
if i have to multiply the thrust of a differnt engine by a certain percentage
it is literally a calculation
Then I believe you’re misunderstanding it. It’s not about providing calculations, no calculations need to be done here for the bug-reporter. For the bug-reporter all he demonstrates is that there’s plausible explanation for how the supercruise performance was achieved where previously developers stated it would require abnormal thrust, or what they believed to be abnormal thrust.
Further, his report at the very least should have been passed due to the installed engine thrust underperforming as that was specific.
Current installed engine thrust is something like 71.88kn when it should instead then be 73kn which is explicitly stated in the report.
3 Likes
What conditions? do we know?
Yeah? What’s weird about it? Rafale was always able to take 8 missiles, we just don’t know if it can make micas in place of meteors
Nope.
Four Meteor is the maximum, but may increase with F.5 or even future F.4s, depending on how things develop.
4 Likes
It’s very easy to find pictures of the Rafale carrying micas on the middle underwing pylons, and everyone knows it can take micas on the wingtips and outer underwing pylons so with the two intake ramp meteors that’s 8
According to some it might even be able to take 10 with two micas underbelly in tandem, even though I don’t know any evidence
Its always easy to find pictures, but whether you know what you’re looking at (or read) is something else entirely .
3 Likes
You’ll have to scroll down a bit, but there are some pretty clear pictures here
Official Dassault website also has pics
Btw about the underbelly ones I won’t make any certain claims since I haven’t found reliable sources but I suspect it because:
- There are some diagrams floating around the internet that indicate it (ik it’s not reliable but that means it might be a thing)
- The Rafale’s belly hardpoint is in fact two in tandem and the Rafale M only has one and can still carry the same stuff underbelly, the only reason I see for this is these two tandem pylons can each carry a mica (so the M could only carry one)
Rafale before the F3R and F4 testing never actually carried MICA on those underwing pylons. All the pictures you are showing are F4, F3R (India), or F4 testbed (Dassault owned).
Pylons might have existed, but were definitely not used for carrying armement until then, and only arrived on in service rafales with the Indian F3R and French F4
Those diagrams are known and are not trustable
The rafale C does indeed have the super structure for one extra pylon in front of the main pylon used for fuel tanks or bombs. However, appart from the Rafale A which was a testbed and structurally different from the Rafales in service, there has never been plans for the Rafale to carry AAM on those middle pylons. Those are mainly for bombs, but the Rafale usually only carries one singular 1000kg bomb, a fuel tank, or the nuclear missile, taking the place of the second pylon
5 Likes
Btw, different subjects. While talking with a Safran guy about the AASM XLR, I also talked with a DGA guy on the CFT shown at the Paris Air Show for the rafale. To install those CFTs, the rafale needs structural retrofit to add the fuel lines, so it’s not plug and play at all. I don’t think there’s any chance we’ll see them before F5, if it even gets it
6 Likes