Can someone tell me what EFT with 4 aim-120s, full internal fuel, and 2 AIM-9s weigh ingame when spawned in on the runway?
So just so I understand: That’s the ingame weight at:
No Fuel, Full Oil, Pilot included, 4x Ejector rails â 40kg and the wingtip stubs for which I can’t find the weight?
So that’s roughly 80kg + 160kg + whatever the wingtips weigh in simulated weight? Let’s argue the wingtips are 30kg each. That would be 300kg added on top of empty weight.
yes it is bc the EF always has the wingtip pylons on
it is the combat weight of a EF witout any missiles and with 0.01% or 0.5kg of fuel (pretty much empty)
you dont need to because they are always mounted, also in WT
You didn’t read what he said
These documents you are reading are including things that the empty weight in game doesn’t have
You have removed what your source is adding to the weight you have completely ignored what flame has said and missed the point
The documents you are looking include stuff that makes it not the true empty weight
now you have to be kidding me?
thats why i posted the statshark screenshot atleast 3 times already with those thing included
i didnt, you missed it
it almost as if those thing are included in the statshark screenshot
1 Like
I think he means stuff like extra sensors etc.
That are not on production AC as the DA.7 is a testbed
And again. Gaijin has the mass set to 11’220 kg instead of 11’000 as per Flame’s sources
Why? So you can try and nerf the Typhoon?
1 Like
my man calm down that source cnat be used for reports
2 Likes
God knows what random secondary source they might have found. Could end up with the Typhoon at 12tons at the rate they like to nerf the Typhoon at the moment
Though could also end up in a buff like the Brimstone nerf they tried to push through
2 Likes
Not at all, figured it would help clear up the debate. As Ron said, the source cannot be used.
Not a lot to clear up.
Flame’s accepted and “fixed” report was to reduce the weight from 11’700 to 11’000.
They reduced the mass to 11’220 / 11’340? In any case, it is higher than the sources flame provided should indicate. However all attempts to report again has since failed as its not the Rafale.
Such as: Community Bug Reporting System & Community Bug Reporting System
I guess we are back to waiting for:
- STR buffs
- ITR buffs
- Supercruise buffs
- Aim-9M Buffs
- ASRAAM/IRIS-T
- Aim-120B/C5 buffs
- BOL buffs
- Brimstone 2, 3, Spear-3s, Spear-Glides & and a dozen GBU options
- PIRATE buffs
- CAPTOR-E
- Cockpit fixes
- 27mm Mauser Buffs
3 Likes
full fuel EF weight (no missiles):
just add the loadout weight:
it might not be able to carry as much internal fuel as irl, i think
bc if you do the math with the loadout weight from WT it carries ~5640kg of fuel irl
meanwhile in WT its max internal fuel weight is 4650kg so the EF might be missing the ability to carry an extra ton of internal fuel ingame
2 Likes
Developers like reports that show the aircraft with pilot, full fuel, ammo, etc so that it is known what the true empty weight can be as that can be worked backwards, rather than other reports such as giving only sources that state empty weight, which did fail to be implemented for the Rafale and was rejected by developers, so no it isn’t a Rafale thing.
AFAIK the definition of “Empty Weight” is standardized for aircrafts by the FAA (Site 10-5):
Standard empty weight (GAMA)—aircraft weight that consists of the airframe, engines, and all items of operating equipment that have fixed locations and are permanently installed in the aircraft, including fixed ballast, hydraulic fluid, unusable fuel, and full engine oil.
This is what the developers should use, everything else comes ontop (like pilot, fuel, ammo, etc. as they’re removable and therefore don’t fall under the definition of “empty weight”).
And then there’s the issue that what devs consider empty weight is not necessarily the same weight as what’s shown on datamines.
But I do agree that they should standardize things a bit. The last bug where they added gun weight to all aircraft’s twice was a bit silly.
My guess is that they use this « empty weight » historically because of the way they did research with older aircrafts
This is not why most don’t gimbal.
The reason most don’t gimbal is because the originally one of the biggest benefits of going to the AESA is the removal of moving parts greatly reducing the maintenance footprint of the radar system.
By putting an AESA on a gimbal you just reintroduce those moving parts, while putting an even heavier antenna on the end of it.
For Stealth aircraft, a fixed installation is better as those gimbals create a reflective surface that is not going to be very easily disguised. And the solution is to just put more antennas in a side looking profile, which has been greatly aided by miniaturization efforts of the technology.
99% of Typhoon reports have been accepted and pending for at least 6 months, many have been pending since dev server 10 months ago.
Several including AMRAAM, Aim-9M and BOL reports (And BOL is most critical and immediate issue) has been pending 2 years at this point.
To claim once again “well if the EFT is bad maybe you should submit more bug reports” is jsut being pretentious
and also dont claim that whole “well maybe the Brits are jsut bad at writing reports, maybe you should get better at writing reports” nonsense either. Most of the reports have been done by a senior tech mod
So instead, lets bring the Rafale down to everyone else level. Starting with ahistorical weapon fits. Loadout is used as a balancing tool for everything else. Heck the Typhoon should have at a minimum SAL brimstones 2s by now, if not MMW Brimstone 2s. But we still have SAL Brimstone 1s. So I dont think its unreasoanble to remove 2x MICA the Rafale C F3 couldnt equip
1 Like
Well, feel free to try then.
1 Like
AIM-54 reports 💀
6 Likes