In the absence of Primary sources (such as a declassfied flight manual) then these other sources must be used. Disregarding most of them due to unsubstantiated conjecture just screws modern vehicles like the Typhoon even further. We are already likely going to be massively nerfed between game limiations and lack of data. Disregarding what data we do have is just going to make it even worse.
No wonder people leak so much classified data on the forums, when the other sources arent accepted.
why does the euro fighter have 64 cm? I thought it only could carry 32 flares in the 55mm spaces.
If the flight manual becomes public you better hide it from Gaijin then, I’ve seen what is inside and you won’t like it.
No one has ever leaked anything to my knowledge. Everything so far found on the public forum was something you could download from a public website it just wasn’t usable for legal reasons.
2x CM per space? idk.
War Thunder has a very very long history when it comes to classifeid leaks
Regardless, this Canadian report suggests the Eurofighter can supercruise up to 1.5 mach but can only do 1.21 mach with full missile load. This is contradicted by many better sources saying it can supercruise up to 1.5 mach with full missile load but I wonder if they are mistaken.
I will not satiate your strange poorly evidenced ramblings about the typhoons, you simply haven’t proved you are credible enough to bother acknowledging
I could accept them not beleiving the conditions stated (i.e full combat load), but like I said, with min fuel and no AAMs at all, I dont beleive its possible in game currently (at least it wasnt on the dev server)
So at a bare minimum, that needs to be fixed.
It would be really helpful to be able to supercruise at high speeds when AAMs have been expended and you are running low on fuel and why I think its important to have this capability modeled, even if it was only in a far lighter load than stated in sources
iirc It can supercruise at Mach 1.21 with missiles and external fuel tanks irl.
Correction; 6 missile, atleast 1 fuel tank, and an extra ton of flight test equipment and 700kg fornbeing the 2 seater variant.
M1.5 with full missiles and no fuel tanks should be well within its capabilities.
I agree, but the complaints aren’t really aiding us in fixing the problem. Instead it just leaves a bad taste in the staffs’ mouths when dealing with the subject and that is doing the opposite in trying to amend the situation.
At 35,000 feet (~10,600m), I used burner to get to 1.5 mach and then cut the burner. Speed is dropping on min fuel to lower than 1.5 mach.
At 9km alt it does the same, drops below 1.5 mach.
I would not say “well within”, seeing as this appears to be the absolute maximum speed it can go. The engines would be at their absolute limit and I do not know how long they can handle the maximum temperature or if it can handle those temps indefinitely. I know there are options to increase maximum turbine inlet temp for enhanced thrust for short durations. Regardless, the exhaust velocity would be ~1.5 mach and the aircraft would be reaching the maximum speed permissible under such conditions - it will not get there quickly like the F-22.
That simply isn’t their call to make, if they are choosing to market wt as a ‘historically accurate’ military simulator then they, as a bare minimum, have to listen to feedback which comes with sources, now they have established the forums and bug reporting sites to channel this feedback, and if they choose to deny reports based off of a ‘sour taste’ then they should stop labelling WT as accurate at all
That’s untrue, also not sure it’s been marketed as a “military simulator”, but rather an “arcade sim”.
Well, the Eurofighter looks accurate and meets basic data so therefore it is “mostly accurate”. Still, there are decisions made for “balance” and those go back to the start of War Thunder.
Limiting loadouts or things like reload rate in tanks, sure. Everything else should be sorted via BR.
@Gunjob In regard to the Eurofighter’s supercruise capability, do you want us to ping you with additional sources or information to amend Flame’s report (re-open it?) or should we submit a new report?
Some websites like this for museums indicate that they think the Eurofighter should only be able to supercruise up to mach 1.5 while unloaded
https://www.f-104.de/en-us/exhibits
I am reading in several places but cannot find the original source, but it is claimed the Singapore Eurofighters demonstrated ‘supercruise’ at mach 1.21 with air to air loadout in hot weather. It is possible that 1.5 mach is only achievable clean and in cold weather.
An example that is often touted is the English Electric Lightning which can only go up to 1.3 mach supercruise in arctic conditions if I recall correctly.
Additionally, I am reading that the reason the F-22 wants to sit at 1.5 mach for supercruise is because that is where the transonic drag is gone. As soon as they enter a speed range where the transonic wave drag is not as bad it will unload the engine and cruise at those speeds, thus improving fuel consumption and efficiency. For the Concorde this was closer to 1.7 mach. For the Eurofighter it may be lower as it is optimized for better wave drag performance than either of the other two.
It would make sense that most sources would be under conditions normally found in western europe (i.e Britain, Spain, Italy and Germany) and that the data would be different in different climates. So basically, do all testing on maps like Denmark and not Tunisia
Since Radar (and IRST) take priority over other reports, I nominate four reports for you to move them higher up the queue. The reason I am giving them to you is that they have already been sitting in the queue for months, despite them being very impactful bugs affecting a wide range of vehicles that can be fixed with a couple lines of code. I can even show you exactly which lines need to be changed with like 90% confidence (no, I am not joking).
I will write down an explanation for why they are so impactful so that you can judge that yourself.
Here they are:
Almost all radars repeat top and bottom bars in scan
All IRSTs are capped at 30 km
OLS-27 IRST severely underperforming range
IRST very poor target visibility (interface)
And here is a short explanation of why they each of them is so important:
This one is by far the most important one and has been here for almost 8 months and EFT players are gonna are already feeling the full extent of it.
Currently, the overwhelming majority of radar scan their bars in the wrong order. The scan patterns before this bug (before update 2.37) were historically correct (most of them, anyway), but now they have all been flipped.
What is the current order and why is the order in which the bars are scanned so important?
Right now, most of airborne radars start scanning from the top left, do the scan, and then start the next scan by going back the opposite way. Instead, they should be restarting each scan from the same point (top left).
This directly affects how long it takes to update each target and is especially important for radars with long period scans, like the Captor-M.
Here we have a target in blue on the top left of the scan zone. Before this bug, the radar would follow those red arrows (1st scan) and then follow the green arrow (2nd target) and update the target. This gives us a target update time of 1 period, which is 3.7 seconds for Captor-M.
With this bug, the 1st scan goes along those red arrow and the second scan goes along the green arrows. This makes the target update time almost twice as long, which is 7.4 seconds. Couple this with Captor-M clearing old tracks after 8 seconds, and you get a really nasty radar experience.
How is this fixed?
Radar config files have this parameter - "barsOneWay". When set to true, the bars are all scanned like they were in the top picture (like they should), when set to false, they scan line the one below (bug).
Before this bug appeared, this variable was set to true by default, so most radars did not have this line included. Those that did, had it set to false. In 2.37, the behaviour seems to have changed to false, changing the behaviour of most radars.
Remember that goofy bug where some ground SPAA had their radar dishes spin back and forth?
Yeah, this is that bug. How was it fixed? They just added "barsOneWay" = true to all the SPAA that needed it. Why did they not do this for airborne radars too? No clue, probably just forgot.
Note: while this is a bug for the vast majority of vehicles, it is not on some for historical reasons, but those already have "barsOneWay" = false explicitly written.
This one is simple - IRSTs can not spot/track past 30 km. Yes, even something like Pirate with 150 km rage, despite the fact that devs acknowledged and already implemented another bug report on its underperformance.
The devs mistakenly marked that report as fixed. This is not true and here is a demonstration:
Why is this bug still here if the max range is given as 150km?
The config file includes sections that describe which range/velocity gates the Radar/IRST looks for targets in. While the max range was increased to 150 km for Pirate, those range gates have still remained at 30 km:
While the cause of this bug is more of an educated guess on my part (unlike the previous bug), I am still about 85% confidant in the written above.
Ok, this one concerns Flankers, but there are 4 of those iconic machines already in the game with many more to come and the underperformance is just that bug. Also, it was forwarded as a SUGGESTION? WTF?
The report link already contains all the tests and sources, but as a short summary:
When afterburning plumes were reworked, all IR seekers received a line specifying detection strength of afterburners, "range7". For some reason, no IRST received this line and now all of them are extremely underperforming in detecting afterburning targets, which are most targets at those BRs. Weirdly, Pirate is right now the only IRST that received it after the users’ reporting on Pirate’s performance. I am asking for that line to be added to all other IRSTs. There is no bug report on it, but I added a comment on the 30 km IRST cap report, please attach it to the main report since I can not edit it.
While this one veers a bit more towards a suggestion, the IRST interface visibility is just so bad it is more than worthy of the bug title.
Tell me if you can see the targets on this IRST display:
Don’t see them? Well, they are actually there:
As you can see, the targets are really small, they fade away really quickly, and those are way to thick.
BTW, that is the wide scan. Here is the narrow scan:
While Pirate and OSF are in a slightly better position, they too have tiny targets because of small scan zones compared to deflection limits:
The suggestions are in the report, but here they are if you want to read them:
This is also another way to fix this (best one, IMO): Option for the Radar scan zone to span the entire Radar screen
Thank you to coming to my TED Talk and I hope this does not get buried at the bottom of your notifications while you sleep (this took me like 2 hours, bruh).
Bump
So let me get this straight
The German EF isn’t getting IRST becuase it wasn’t part of the service equipment and only tested
But the Rafale gets 8 MICA and HMD even though it wasn’t part of the service equipment and only tested
And the Su-27SM gets the dual R-77 pylons even though it was never part of the service equipment or tested
and no mid 2000s APG-63v3 for F-15C (in service) or 2007 or 8 APG-82v1 for F-15E (also in service) or Legion IRST pod(either tested or in service), or even GBU-53 (tested sucessfully 2012, fully accepted on F-15E 2020) and LJDAM (in service and ingame but not in US tree for some reason?) even though rafale from 2018 has an AESA, and like you said HMD that was only tested.
