Any kind you’d like, just remember to customize your size options too
1 Like
It’s been said before, but you shouldn’t really talk about things breaking the laws of physics and then refuse to test said things in an non-scientific process.
What you showed was two different aircraft using two different/inconsistent control inputs doing different stall manoeuvres. The comparison should start with both aircraft in the exact same energy state and finish in the same way. The differential data you would’ve gained from such a comparison would’ve held weight to the point you are trying to make, as opposed to being worthless like it currently is.
So your conclusion is that both planes are aerodynamically different yet you want them to perform the same? Do you have any data to back up the fact that the EFT should be in a deep stall in the same conditions a Rafale would be fine in?
This is completely ignoring the fact that the instructor exists precisely to stop planes from departing flight… was the instructor disabled as best as you can manage in these tests?
I have always adhered to using the exact same standard for testing (full real) whenever I’ve made a report. I have not made one (yet).
Do show me where a delta wing with >40 degree leading edge sweep maintains in excess of 40 degrees AoA without total flow separation. Test was conducted in mouse aim, going to full real removes the artificial limit to the available pull… which would worsen it. So exactly how does testing them equally matter if it only further proves my point? What is the point of arguing this? None? That’s what I thought.
The comparison is irrelevant, it shows the Rafale in full real and with maximum stick pull cannot achieve > 40 degrees AoA without intentionally yawing into a stall. The Eurofighter can just chill at an AoA in excess of what would cause total pitch-out departure and flow separation without even using full real inputs. Totally absurd. A completely parallel static test isn’t necessary at all and this whole reply you’ve made is a bunch of pointless nonsense.
My point is that a delta wing should not go well beyond total flow separation and maintain that zone when it was known for having limited AoA due to deep stall and instability with a heavily restrictive FCS irl.
The instructor was fully disabled for the Rafale and it followed the laws of physics, stalling at ~40 AoA whereas the Rafale sat in excess of 40 degrees without any signs of stall.
Do you think the Eurofighter is accurately modeled in-game? Do you think it should be able to sustain Cobra levels of AoA?
I’m not making any claim as the performance of the planes, I am merely arguing how you’ve tried to demonstrate your point. I just know that after watching both videos, stupidly and biasedly titled as well, that a proper testing methodology wasn’t demonstrated even if it was used as you claim (though you did switch between mouse and full real in one video anyway.)
I don’t know enough about the aircraft nor have any documentation to back it up even if I did, not my point. You could go a long way with a lot of people on this forum if you put effort into not having such a condescending and/or argumentative tone in your comments
At the end of the day, all of this discussion is nothing more than opinion piece arguing unless you submit the appropriate bug reports. It’s like you’re trying to sway public opinion as if that would affect how a report gets considered.
in service 2025, already been tested on various aircraft so valid for addition
range stated to be at least 2x that of AIM-120D-3
Again, for what? The way I tested it put a TON of favor towards the Eurofighter. Gave it every benefit of the doubt and all the advantages possible to prevent it from being a UFO.
You’re right! I made a complete and totally biased comparison in favor of the Eurofighter and it still falls flat on it’s face. It’s a total UFO.
I don’t care what they think of my tone. If they can’t take a neutral look at their favorite plane and accept that it’s not worth the money spent on it, that’s simply not my problem.
The Eurofighter being a UFO is not an opinion.
Where
1 Like
here, any 200km estimates are the bare minimum required range figure
as for amraam variant, AIM-120D well into production and service by 2019, most likely choice
another one (its what the other one is quoting but needs subscription)
The AIM-120D-3 is stated to have ~160km range, 40km more is not 200%.
AIM-120D entered production in 2017, AIM-120D-3 more recently.
Eurofighter contains the same rwr capability. Both were heavily influenced by bae
incorrect, AN/ALR-94 was developed by LM Sanders, the first one was delivered in 1999.
in 2000, BAE bought LM Sanders, and became the main manufacturer of AN/ALR-94 as a result. To become the manufacturer of ALR-94, they ofc got the manufacturing capabilities, and exact technical details on it as well as just how it works. If anything, the ALR-94 probably influenced the EFT DASS. The ALR-94 is still equal to if not better than the EFT one though, as it was made as an all-out, no expense spared sensor suite to beat anything China or Russia could make for years to come, while the EFT one, while undoubtedly excellent, was made on a much tighter budget
Does it? Can you show me where the Eurofighter does this;
Well said.
2 Likes
AIM-120D entered full production 2014, IOC in 2015
as you can see in source, the range chart circle was “roughly 2 times bigger than the amraam one”
AIM-120D estimates at 160km, so “roughly double” would be 300-340km (he did say roughly after all)
if you look at other BAE ECM products, they even openly state they use tech from F-22 and F-35 (sometimes they say “5th gen fighter” of which there are literally 2 BAE could take tech from), which i think further cements my case
1 Like
My bad, SIP1 update was provided in 2017.
I doubt the veracity of this claim. They already had dual pulse motors ready in the 90s, even produced and tested one for an AMRAAM form factor by 2010-2012 timeframe but never mentioned such an increase in performance.
1 Like
i mean motor technology has improved since then, and iirc they are putting a smaller warhead on it and using the relatively new mass-producability of some composites, as well as smaller but more capable electronics to give it that range boost
if you doubt electronics, compare the capability of the best GPU from 2009 (120D tested iirc), and the best of 2022 (260 test date iirc)
The electronics in the missile are upgraded constantly over time and during maintenance periods. The software likewise. The need for a faster processor may have been overcome and now size reduction is a priority - who knows… but they must handle the G-force. The latest technology generally does not do that very well. The latest chips use quite a lot of “dead silicon” already just to protect the smaller, more fragile layer of transistors. 75% or more of modern chips is just structural safety silicon.
What is not so fast in advancement is materials sciences for rocket propellant. They have not doubled the performance every two years since the 90s.
yeah, good point.
i mean i guess we will just have to wait to see if more numbers are released
1 Like
Looking further into it…it depends on the altitude. At sea level the F-15 has a VNE (rip speed) that is 15km per hour faster than the Eurofighter but doesn’t actually reach it. It’s top speed tops out around 1619KPH while the Eurofighter can reach its VNE of 1614KPH in around 45 seconds…and it would have a top speed of around 1730KPH if it was not for the VNE.
So in the barest technical sense…the F-15E is faster…by a whole 4KPH at sea level.
It is literally the best jet in the game right now. The fact that you completely fail to realize it and are coping that it isn’t OP enough for you boggles my mind.
This is one of my air to ground loadouts with the Eurofighter.
So you are saying that I should be able to take 10 air to air missiles…and also take 12 fire and forget air to ground missiles on the literal best platform in the game? So the solution to 1 OP CAS airplane (and it is only OP in tank battles…in EC the Su-34 is nothing special compare to anything that carries GBU-39s) is to take the best fighter in the game…and give it double the air to ground capability of the thing that you are complaining is OP?
Also…want to know what the flight performance gap between the Tornado and the Su-34 is? The sustained turn rate difference is about 2 degrees per second and the Tornado is actually faster than the Su-34. What is the flight performance difference between the Su-34 and the Typhoon? The STR of the Typhoon is 7 degrees per second better than the Su-34. The top speed of the Typhoon is much faster than the Su-34.
So basically…your idea is that we need to take the highest performing fighter that is currently in the game…and make it into the highest performing PVP CAS in the game as well where it sacrifices none of it’s PVP capability. Why?
Who said that Italy or Britain are banned from having good aircraft? Britain had a Gripen that it never purchased shoved into it’s tech tree in order to give it a good top tier aircraft…and it has been amongst the best top tier aircraft since it was added. It has been hands down one of the best PVP aircraft since it was added; so much so that 6/8 planes in the Air Superiority tournament finale were Gripens. Italy is much of the same story with the Hungarian sub-tree.
The only nation that you listed that has a valid complaint there is the German mains who’s previous top tier aircraft was the F-4F ICE. And if I recall correctly…this is a plane that you are currently complaining about because it doesn’t always fight in the same sim bracket as the F-15E and Eurofighter. And when German mains were asking for an F-16 to be shoehorned into their tech tree in the same way that the Gripen was shoehorned into the British tech tree…or the F-16 was shoehorned into the Japanese tech tree…or the F-16 that was shoehorned into the French tech tree…you were opposed to that as well.
4 Likes
He probably will not respond but the answer is flat out no. The Eurofighter in game is able of attaining Angles of Attack that the real one cannot. Even the SAS Damping limit is wrong because it is set to 29 degrees AoA just like the Rafale when the real Eurofighter is documented to have an AoA limit of around 24 degrees. There is a reason that they made the AMK in order to increase it’s available AoA.
1 Like