No, those tanks were actually relatively recently qualified up to M1.6
I would note that this photo seems to have been taken as some form of gesture, trying to chase the sun. It’s not on an “operation”.
No clue, this squadron usually posts a bunch of similar photos for both mirage 2000 and Rafale
Rafale’s FSO-TV has insufficient zoom // Gaijin.net // Issues
Thanks goes to Mulatu for his source and assistance.
5 Likes
In that case would be great if you could provide others the full sources as well.
the guy known for manipulation and misuse of sources is highly suspect.
Pretty common most wont trust that guy anymore
Edit:
How is the discussion of sources for a bug report innappropiate?
If its validdjust share the sources and good the topic is finished. Flagging this just makes it more suspect and like u want to hide sth
5 Likes
This is the source
Just to give a heads up, MT is a supplementary source, so anything added over said pictures, for example ranges added by the magazine itself, will not be taken by Gaijin at face value, unless they decide to break their own rules.
3 Likes
That does indeed sound like a mulatu source in that case
1 Like
First off, I was deep asleep and never flagged your comment, there’s no point in making baseless accusations.
i never called you out specialy there, it was an edit for the general public
They’ve accepted and implemented reports with a single non-primary source and have implemented them. For instance a video showing HUD signage is pretty clear cut and doesn’t need to have written literature. Another would be a single secondary source book showing the HUD of an aircraft (which did get passed and implemented in the case of the F-16). But I’ll add other sources just in case.
But then how would the public hide something or share the sources if I am the one who had made the report?
That is literally a primary source.
For visual stuff images are always best
I just mean primary source in the traditional sense of being published by the manufacturer, government, etc.
i dont know how it specialy works for you guys, but for the our side at least we share all our ressources puiblicaly in our discord and anyone intrested of the community can look trough the ressources.
I guess i took it that you work similar and discuss project reports in the discord and others having access to it and able to answer / send them if you arent available at the time.
Mulatu himself obviously cant answer himself for obvious reasons, which likely is for the better
You missed my point. MT is treated by them as supplementary. It does like this primary>secondary>supplementary. Supplementary can not be used by themself to make a bug report, they can be used to strengthen your take from the 2 secondary or 1 primary.
Ofc image found inside them can be.
The problem here is that 50km is added by the magazine, it is not on the screen.
And just to clear it, I am not against the buff, it is about the source. It was one of my main secondary sources I used to do bug reports up to around a year ago. That’s when gaijin preformed a review of sources, and all of the secondary i was using were turned into supplementary, meaning I can’t use them to make reports. I’m still annoyed but this.
Error 405 my beloved, let me post this.
3 in a row, I’m impressed
4, interesting
5, it’s starting to get annoying
1 Like
I’m curious how were you able to access the magazine, did you come across an online archive of it?
I have an acces to a bunch of magazines. I dont even remember how i got this one.
1 Like
Btw, should be noted that the range is obtained by the images themselves which contain the range at the bottom in the form of nautical miles. They just converted it to km. It’s just more difficult to see for the Rafale-50km one but it can be seen for the other 3 images.
Spoiler
1 Like
13 Likes
What is that, it’s something new ? or just because it’s funny xd
1 Like
Just a small clip showing the TV sensor gimbaling in two different ways, hard to come by a lot of footage showing it moving around.
3 Likes
@Smin1080p_WT Hey, can we get clarification on what the reporting criteria is? The original report has 3 supporting documents as you noted:
-Austrian Brochure (Rejected as a source upon review of the report)
-MMRCA (Missing a cover and any specific criteria (config/weight/speed/G). All of this is guessed and assumed for the sake of the report. The aircraft is configured to this chart for a weight that achieves 1.10 TWR using 89% internal, however the reporter gets this value from erroneously using uninstalled thrust values. With installed thrust, only 74% internal is needed to get a TWR of 1.10, thus the aircraft in-game also overperforms against this document) - It is also worth noting that the EF2000 and F-16C are >2deg/s off compared to this chart.
-Aermacchi document (Secondary source used to set STR at 15,000’, however the SEP plot is disregarded (aircraft in-game achieves 990ft/s vs 700ft/s on the chart), the aircraft conforms to one value on this graph closely but is completely off on the other)
Of the above, there is only one document that meets the standards for a secondary source, and a minimum of two secondary sources are needed for a valid bug report.
The developer has also used the video attached to the report to model the STR performance at sea level.
Additionally, the aircraft has been configured for a fuel weight of 1300kg at the time that the STR is taken (7:27 2), and the warning preset comes on at (8:03). This is only a time difference of 36 seconds. To go from 1300kg to 800kg in the span of 36 seconds requires a fuel burn rate of 13.9kg/s, or 833kg/m which is not physically possible. For reference, the Rafale in-game can only achieve 9.8kg/s or 588kg/m while at VNE(787.5kts)/SL. With the highest speed value between 7:27-8:03 (461kts) in full afterburner at sea level, the Rafale is only capable of burning 8.2kg/s or 492kg/m-meaning that the developer uses a value 70% higher than a high-ball estimate of the aircraft’s burn rate in-game (All of this of course assuming full afterburner throughout this duration, which is a bold assumption to begin with). It is also worth mentioning that this is not a steady state turn, over the only 1.83 seconds that are measured, the aircraft loses both speed and altitude.
If 833kg/m was the burn rate for the entire performance, the aircraft would have run out of fuel 3 minutes before the STR measurement is taken.
In another report, it is also stated that the aircraft is overperforming in relation to the video, but this has not been revisited.
Is this the standard for a flight performance bug report? Why wasn’t the STR returned to the value it was originally, before this report? Why are only parts of sources used and other parts of the same source ignored?
16 Likes