I just woke up man, forgive me. I also spent the last day trying to manhandle my new RTX into my small ass PC case.
No worries then, glad to hear you upgraded your pc.
Hope it met your expectations.
Oh no, I didn’t manage xD
The RTX is currently sitting in a box behind me, gonna have to take it to a friend to handle it for me (he builds PCs for a living, i’m a laik).
You know the FMs arent realistic, an fully loaded F-4F can pull 9G in game that configuration would be limited to 4-5G tops.
You cant scream murder for the Typhoon when every other jet is in many cases overperforming in some capacity. The F-16 has a G limiter that are not active in game. I’m not sure what you hope the outcome of these posts are?
Nerf the Typhoon to realistic levels? While allowing fully loaded Su-34 to Kobra or F-16s insane AOA?
1 Like
All planes can perform in excess of published G limits in War Thunder.
The F-16 has a G limitation but it is only approximated in Sim with SAS Damping controls.
The Typhoons AoA limit in damping is also in excess of what is realistic to all public knowledge.
2 Likes
Hopefully he can manage to build it so you can enjoy your new card :D
1 Like
You accept that the game takes liberties with Fms.
Yes maybe the Typhoon is overperforming in some areas, it is certainly underperforming in certain aspects (Radar!!)
F-16s nose authority is a massive issue in game and has been for many updates.
1 Like
I don’t see 24° mentioned anywhere in there…
I’m also still waiting for @MiG_23M to tell me where I’ve posted documents showing the Eurofighter to have an AoA limit of 25°. As far as I’m aware the closest I’ve got to information on Eurofighter’s AoA a few documents about EAP, which aren’t much use as the wing design is different.
6 Likes
The author of the article I linked claims 24 degrees and his source seems to be from interviewing test pilots when asking about the AMK. Basically that AMK was made in order to increase the planes AoA capability.
Also the same website has an interview with some researcher at RUSI.
This is what is said about Rafale vs Eurofighter in terms of maneuverability.
So this article makes some pretty solid claims about the relative performance of both of the planes.
- Rafale has advantage at 15,000ft and below.
- Rafale has slight advantage in instantaneous turn rate
- Rafale is slightly better than Eurofighter in high alpha authority at slow speeds.
- Rafale has lower bleed rates at low altitudes. Eurofighter has edge in gain rates.
So how do these planes compare in-game?
This is the Statshark EM plot of both planes in clean configuration with 50% fuel at sea level. I have selected an 11G limit to make an allowance for the supposed “emergency” mode that these planes may have that allows them to exceed 9G. This comparison should heavily favor the Rafale according to our previous information.
So here is what we have.
- The Eurofighter has the same instantaneous turn rate. (It’s .1 degree per second higher technically).
- The Eurofighter has a 2 degrees per second higher sustained turn. (SEP 0 Line = Sustained Turn.)
- The Eurofighter has lower bleed rates across the board.
- The Eurofighter has higher gain rates across the board.
- The Eurofighter has a smaller turn radius than the Rafale.
Basically…with the way that both planes are modeled in War Thunder…the Eurofighter has all of the advantages that the Rafale would have over it…as well as all of the normal advantages that it would have if it were realistic.
2 Likes
Sorry forgot to clip second part.
So the AMK is to improve the performance under heavy loads like i originally said
And all this is yet again word of a pilot which means little
With you what your saying being very twisted
The original source for the claims regarding AoA and the AMK seems to be Chris Worning…who is a test pilot for EADS…so no…this isn’t your standard “my brothers friends nephews cousin is a fighter pilot and said the hornet can do a cobra”.
Having increased agility at high loads is not the only purpose of the AMK. Having increased agility across the board with and without high loads is the purpose.
Eurofighter is limited to 29 degrees AoA in SAS Damping which is same AoA limit as Rafale and Mirage 2000. However in manual controls it can pull up to 50 degrees AoA before it tries to stall itself out. It’s a very useful trick to use in Air SB.
This is also wrong.
The only F-18 that could pull 70 degrees AoA is the HARV w/ thrust vectoring.
Technically F-18 might be able to do false-cobra via disabling AoA limiter but the maneuver would probably be accompanied with a large loss of altitude and deliberate stall recovery procedure.
The Rafale should be superior compared to the Eurofighter notably in low-speed high AOA flight, and mainly instantaneous turn rate. At lower altitudes ingame, the Eurofighter is just outright superior compared to the Rafale across the board in terms of flight performance.
It’s not really a technological difference or anything, it’s the aerodynamic design. The long-arm canards that the Eurofighter uses are good at controlling the flow of air over the main wing, which can lead to less energy being lost. But the coupling of air is not as aggressive because of the distance to the delta wing. In comparison, Rafale’s close-coupled canards couple air aggressively, and that naturally leads to more lift generation.
I think that it’s either the EFT or the Rafale that needs a change to better reflect this ingame, probably more so the Rafale. I can’t offer my two cents whether EFT can maintain reasonable stability at 50 degrees of AOA without departing completely, since I have not studied this airframe as much as the other delta-canards.
Is the average power of the APG-77 known? I’ve seen 20 kW peak power often quoted, but that isn’t too useful for comparison when you consider the MiG-25’s radar was supposedly 600 kW peak power.
I thought it was pretty self explanatory but I guess not.
Su-34 would be pretty neutered if US teams weren’t consisted of Click-Bait/AIM spammers that don’t even have Ground TT top tier, let alone Air one lol.
France is a minor nation and as such will have way less players than major ones, and it also doesn’t help that they have not so great top tier MBTs.
Su-34 is still relevant not because the vehicle itself is broken, it’s that most other options/counters aren’t nearly played as much, which is a player’s problem, not vehicles’.
Also, it’s a good thing that you finally made peace with the fact that vehicles can have something their contemporaries lack for balance purposes. You’re making progress towards understanding how balance works.
I never said EFT is the only one that doesn’t need FnF.
320km is wild for the size of missile, considering it has a jetisioned booster and not a built in air breathing engine.
Give FnF Brimstone put it in 13.0-13.3 in ground RB
I want to be free of Clickbait
2 Likes
Agree, much better than need to guiding that thing or only work at close range.