I’ll hold off, but saved that for a bug report. a LOT could change for the radar and was told to wait by Gunjob. Anyone else I would submit the report.
Also with the dev server closed. I probably cant submit it how they want it anyway (Gamelog + Screenshot) and likely will get closed like the FM reports did
Ight, hit me up if you do.
Will do. I’ll wait for live. With Gunjob beating the devs into submission, hopefully we wont have any issues with the radar
Yeah… Though ,once fixed, both Fox Hunter and Blue Vixen have been solid radars for us. Just had a rocky start in life.
I am betting on at least 3 of these 4 bugs coming/remaining next patch:
Incorrect vertical angle/coordinate of target on IRST display
TWS not refreshing targets that deviate from flight path
Poor IRST display target visibility
IRSTs capped to 30 km range
and those are just the ones reported so far. PIRATE should also ignore flares, slave missiles, be usable against ground targets, the TGP doesnt slave the lock and missing UV/IR MAWS. All awaiting being reported
These are the submitted reports so far:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ZDBeRSwcKGrq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/c5GdDg8imjnq
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jora2udnR4xG
Hmm, I don’t remember the Su-27 IRST going for flares that often, but I guess they could easily make Pirate ignore flares easily (IR trackers on tanks do that already IIRC).
Wait, it does not? I though most IRSTs already do that. I know the Fulcrum and Wanker do.
Yeah, I think this functionality is missing from most IRSTs that are not modeled like imagers/IR cameras. Gaijin will need to do quite a bit of work to add that functionality in a state that will be satisfiable. They would need to add an IRST ground mode, make it slave the TGP and seekers (maybe even make it be slaveable to POI), make imaging IRST (more like FLIR/EOTS) be able to function both like a TGP and scanner, and most importantly, make the interface much more seamless.
Frankly, I think it would be much easier to just make give the planes that have imaging IRSTs a built in IR TGP with the same gimbal limits as the IRST. I say that because the whole process of using AG radar modes (assuming they can spot targets with 0 velocity) very cumbersome. A lot of modes are MTI, so you don’t see stationary vehicles. Those that are not (do we even have them?) spot corpses too. Targets often are not spotted or lost when they are just partially behind cover. I think if Gaijin adds that functionality to IRSTs, the gameplay loop will be similar, at which point using a TGP is a much better option, unless they decide to do a rework of those mechanics.
Would be really dope if they make the IRSTs with ground scan capability just be like a TGP that also highlights spotted targets with TWS boxes directly on your screen, instead of the IRST display, and make target locking with your mouse (like autotrackers). Would be also nice if IRST that IRL can track multiple targets be able to switch current locked/tracked target with your mouse without it clearing all the previous targets.
Then why ask when you can find it yourself and pass it directly to Devs?
Good luck with that
It does IR, I guess its meant to also slave AMRAAM
Also, PIRATE is both a tgp and IRST, they finally modeled that correctly
Because we wanted to open it up also for community ideas and suggestions. Given this was a community made report that highlighed it in the first place.
As I said all options for a Tranche 2 from TLG-31 would be taken into account.
Didn’t Gaijin say that the radar of the Typhoon was not completely made?
The Tornado F.3 had channel losses of 4%.
Installed thrust from the manual:
Uninstalled thrust from the datasheet:
You would be surprised what’s possible with todays “fluid dynamic simulation” tools and the development of todays engines in conjunction designed for that specific air intake.
Another bug that idk was ever addressed was that, in vr the TWS locks in the hud would move with your head instead of staying in the hud like they’re supposed to. Not the HMD btw, the hud. The hmd worked fine for showing those tws locks.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xY5nY2hMWExk
Welp, there goes the “war setting” engine power…
Reports based on static thrust values can’t be accepted.
Reports based on assumptions and calculations can’t be accepted.
So if we would have a report about the insalled thrust values in “war setting” it would be able to go through but guessing by how difficult it is to generally find something about this setting, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
Maybe somebody has the time/motivation/etc. to ask the Bundeswehr, RAF, etc. directly if they ever tested or used the EJ200 in their Eurofighters in their “unlimited” mode, even if just for testing, but I doubt they would answer that at all.
Funny part: “Reports based on assumptions and calculations can’t be accepted.”
Of course Reports on assumptions is clear, but based on calculations? So that would mean we could simulate and calculate everything with valid given data and known/proven formulas to get the (even if just approximate) values but they wouldn’t accept it as math and physics don’t seem to hold any weight for the devs lol
Edit: The more I think about it… It doesn’t matter if we report the thrust values static or installed as the devs modify and substract the intake losses as they see fit anyway, so it should be valid to report static thrust values. I don’t get these answers to reports concerning engine power… (Of course reports concerning that the shown thrust in game differs from static thrust are stupid as they’re shown with intake losses substracted from them)
Yeah… given they call mica long ranged in rafale dev blog and flankers maneuverable, we are getting blue vixen copy pasta.
I doubt it will be a straight up copy pasta. Just how much better it will be than blue Vixen? That’s a good question