Indeed, I do have an idea of sorts that would be “easy” for the devs to implement for these multimode weapons.
Essentially, the current Brimstone mod name would change to SAL/MMW (2 separate versions), however the MMW equipped Brimstones would have some insane SP cost in ground modes while letting air modes get the full capability.
1 Like
And what makes you think everyone agrees with limited amount of F&F Brimstones?
Just because you use 6 of them doesnt mean everyone is using the same loadout.
1 Like
And those capabilities it has available are what determines how it is balanced. Date just happens to typically coincide
2 Likes
Demonstrating that even in mouse aim the Eurofighter exceeds known AoA limits and stability whereas without any instructor at all the Rafale maxes out at the real world limitations of around 30-40 degrees in brief excursions.
Yes, it has gotten worse because it is also lighter now.
You’re right, hence why the EFT was given the benefit of mouse aim where it should have hidden the obvious overperformance some…
Regardless if it benefits the comparison or not, testing should be done with the same parameters and aircraft as to objectively show a result.
The actual comparison should’ve demonstrated the EFT in the dev server in mouse aim versus the EFT in live with mouse aim.
The Rafale might be similar in design philosophy but it’s still a completely different aircraft - what’s the point trying to demonstrate it?
I don’t think they suck now either tbh. Are they as good as they were say 3 months ago? No but Russia doesn’t need to be the best Nation in the game
That is fair.
1 Like
Do you have a source for these supposed EFT limits btw? im curious whats written there. @MiG_23M
also
the weight reduction was around 100kg which A) should be additional 200 down to 11000 tons kilograms (would be very funny if it weighed 11 thousand tons) if i remember correctly and B) is not going to change the flight performance in a way that will turn it into a UFO. In dev the typhoon had around 2-4 extra degrees of ITR which are not present in live so the flight model has already changed slightly.
According to @Flame2512 source the limit is 25 degrees operationally. The EAP before it was tested up to 33 degrees iirc but the instability was increased on the Eurofighter which limited the high-alpha capability somewhat more to avoid deep stalls and pitch-out departures.
One issue with the Eurofighter design that is more of a tradeoff is that the canards are what cause the instability. On a design like the Gripen the canards always push air up, and the nose down. The lift created by it is “negative”, or counteracts the noses’ want to pitch up. Else, the design is neutrally stable without the canards and at medium airspeeds. This allows the aircraft to simply deflect the canards or feather them for artificial stability as needed.
With the Eurofighter, the canards aid to the overall positive lift and cause an instability margin of 15% MAC. In the various documentation I was reading previously I recollect it stating that 16% would have been double what the canards could handle in case of departure conditions, 15% surely is also high and thus strict AoA limits are applied similar to the F-16.
I did not say it was considerably worse or that it turned it into a UFO, it was already a UFO and the performance is even higher now that it is lighter. Even if only a small percent higher.
Maximum instant turn rate tests should be conducted in full real and I was showing how the flight model was already a UFO even with the instructor limitations. The instant turn rate is not the issue. The absurd stability and lack of departure symptoms or conditions is.
When the Eurofighter has all the benefits and still overcomes the laws of physics it shows just how much larger the disparity is and benefits the test overall. This isn’t some scientific standard that we are comparing the two aircraft equally to.
That would be pointless to compare the Eurofighter to itself, I showed that the Rafale follows the laws of physics in full real and the Eurofighter defies them even in mouse aim, that makes obvious the absurdity that is the EFT flight model right now.
It is not, the Eurofighter canards aid overall positive lift and cause the instability margin to be rather high - meaning deep stalls and departure are a serious concern. The Rafale is not so concerned as the canards do not aid to overall positive lift and thus does not have deep stall or departure concerns at high AoA.
Hmmmm… interesting I really wanna see how it gonna play out if Russian main receive Italian treatment Italian main was endured it for years and yet able to keep acceptable win-rate using just Ariete before they got 2A7HU.
I wanna see if Russian main able to do the same or their win-rate will be crumble to dust?
from what i heard from another person that limit is related to landing gear deployment. When i said sources i was kinda hopeful youd have some sort of declassified information on the high AoA performance of EFT deltawing design.
As for the instability from the canards, from a friend of mine, supposedly the entire instability of the airplane is to improve maneuvarbility at the cost of making the plane be necessary to use digital fly-by-wire to operate.
Additionally it is kind of weird to compare the performance of rafale as a some sort of a benchmark for how well another plane with different design functions.
And related to the game itself, AoA limits are very funky in this game as the resulting G load ingame quite often outperforms real life. Tell me how often have you in your F16, which realistically shouldnt be able to go over 9Gs of load as at that point the plane may or will get damaged, you were able to perform a U turn putting your dude into a 14-16G overG turn.
Im not gonna lie those are some very bold claims, not following the laws of physics even as an exaggeration, id really hope for some actual sources which state precisely how much AoA the plane can sustain and by how big a margin it would differ from the ingame performance.
If Rafales canards are designed differently than EFTs which you yourself confirm by saying one is meant to aid positive lift and the other doesnt have to be as concerned then the planes are different. And as such shouldnt be held to the same type of performance that you are somehow expecting. While both are deltawings even according to yourself they follow different designs which would most probably alter their performance in comparison to one another.
2 Likes
We both know thats not true
8 Likes
I have to disagree with this, missiles are easily dodgeable, any competent pilot can outpull even the 50G VT-1 at close or effective range.
Everything else you said holds up, current SAMs are underpowered and ill equiped to deal with the ordinance we have in the game and it’s time we get something better if not equal to Pantsir for everybody.
1 Like
Got a link? It might be because I’m tired, but I don’t recall having anything about AoA.
6 Likes
When you fire a Brim from 10km, it takes 60 seconds or something to reach the target. 60 secs you need to hold the point. 60 seconds where you can’t turn away, since the target pod just works forward arc. Its so slow, It also happened that I overtook my own Brimstones. Its hilarios as top tier weapon.
It only works well when enemy team is braindead and you’re above the battefield, diving down, pointing, shooting. One skilled player spawning an SPAA can just use the invulnerability timer to blast you jet out of sky. It needs the F&F feature, as all others have.
Okay, Air & Space Europe Volume 1, No 3 (1999)
Early limit of 25 degrees AoA, expanded to 28-29 degrees within that CG and configuration at the time. The instability was later changed to at least ~15% MAC as I stated earlier.
Minimum induced drag would have required 16% MAC but that was “approximately twice that that the FCS can cope with”.
Source
EAP tested 15% instability in 1986 with an anti-spin gantry at the back.
Source
It was solely done to reduce induced drag. I.e. the delta canard configuration (if stable) would require some amount of AoA for level flight. When instability is introduced it naturally wants to pitch. This is countered by some camber from the trailing edge flaps which allows for better lift to drag ratios and less induced drag. It also means higher sustained turn rates and better pitch acceleration at the cost of the potential for deep stalls and pitch-out departures if pitch angle and acceleration limits are exceeding what the canards can handle.
Even aircraft like the F-18 or a thrust vectoring Sukhoi cannot perform the stunts that the Eurofighter can do currently in-game. Why do I require a source to show that a Eurofighter should not be capable of hovering and floating around at 70 degrees AoA with zero departure symptoms or instability characteristics such as wing rock, asymmetrical vortices and yaw, etc?
It is a specific design consideration that would make it obvious the Eurofighter should not be capable of such high angles of attack and low speed control as the Rafale. That is a very dangerous envelope for the Eurofighter to be in and has caused severe deep stall issues in every other unstable design. Does the Eurofighter have some new anti-gravity drive that is not discussed?
Apparently not as that was what I recollect from his sources. Do you have better ones?
Wouldn’t that be a game related situation, not the jet?
First of all it doesnt take 60 seconds.
False, you can just point on map, fire Brimstone, get behind cover and pop up when 10 seconds left on counter.
If you’re just using laser lock all the time then it’s your issue.
Nonsense, you can pretty much counter any competetent Spaa with the tactic I’ve mentioned.
Seems like you don’t know how to use EFT properly.
1 Like
It is this particular FM within the game, so no