F-16 nose authority and high alpha are not realistic at all though and are more egregious than the Typhoon.
1 Like
Roll rate for most top tier aircraft is significantly worse than they should. That’s because the instructor tends to break the wings off during high roll rate pulling maneuvers
again you can’t use Air show videos as proof of performance since there is variable information about anything from fuel to ammo pylons temperature altitude if the pilot feels like pulling fully or not and many more.
i hope Videos that you send don’t convince Gijin with such unconventional evidence of performance this is one of the worst ways to find out performance unless it acceeds in-game performances
Just to clarify airshow displays are not accepted by the Devs as any form of meaningful evidence on the limits or performance of an aircraft.
Not only is there a multitude of unknowns just from camera perspective/speed, fuel loads, stores etc but also operational limits placed on public displays which can differ between different nations even operating the same type of aircraft.
Displays are also constructed based on geographical limitations (airspace, display area, weather limits, visibility etc) and the operational stress tolerances (to prolong airfeame life and reduce the risk of fatigue on operational frontline aircraft) permitted by that respective nations air force.
As such, videos of that nature are not used to create or judge the real performance of an aircraft.
17 Likes
yep, I wasn’t intending on reporting a specific performance setpoint based off clips from an airshow.
Can you explain why this video was used? There is no provided fuel load as well, and the report just assumes a random fuel %. Community Bug Reporting System
And do you know what happened with this? Community Bug Reporting System or if I can add new clips from after the FM change?
The report used 3 other documents with reference to performance.
This report is currently open still.
2 Likes
Yes 82 kN is 8,361.7 kg which is a total of 16,723.3 kg for two engines.
However ~82 kN is static thrust used for the estimates and does not include channel losses (or whatever you want to call it).
IIRC Gaijin use ~5.5% as the channel loss for Eurofighter, so if you apply that same channel loss to the 82 kN static thrust you get 77.9 kN (7,944 kgf) per engine as thrust to test with in game.
6 Likes
Those videos are not even worth discussing. We have no way of telling:
- What the fuel load is
- Whether the engines are actually at full afterburner
- Whether the aircraft is changing speed or altitude (if so it’s not a sustained turn)
- What speed the aircraft is flying at (the 20°/s requirement is specifically for Mach 0.65)
They provide no useful information within the context of this discussion.
5 Likes
Channel losses are included in the estimate, it states that explicitly.
They include channel losses in their modelling, but they are applied in addition to the various other thrust reductions they mention. If you tally up those thrust reductions you get to ~82.1 kN of thrust before accounting for channel losses.
3 Likes
In that case, its not a 1:1 comparison from 90kN, your channel loss % should come from 87.3 kN (uninstalled, but with the nozzle fitted) (the final aircraft uses the same nozzle as well).
Then you have 2.6% loss total, which if applied to 82.1kN results in 79.9kN, or 159.8kN/16295kgf total, which is just 200kgf under what I tested with which is not much of a difference. 107% THR is 16141kgf, which is 154 kgf under that, which I can test if you want.
That’s my bad in assuming that the 2.7kN was for both the nozzle and being installed in the acft
and if you ignore the above entirely, 77.9 kN is 106% which it also overperforms with.
I also kept lowering throttle on the previous FM until it could meet the STR given in the performance estimate and that ended up being 71kN / 103%, so there’s still a fair way to go anyways.
Watch 103THR | Streamable ← more or less the same deal in the current iteration
No matter how you slice it, its overperforming in STR with this data.
3 Likes
I pull 15/14g fully loaded to notch FOX3s with my Rafale right before I send a off bore MICA at the enemy at ranges as low as possible.
One reason why I do well in Rafale while I rather struggle in Eurofighter.
1 Like
It really isn’t.
What game are you plaing? I want it too.
Its called: “Blabbering at midnight”. You should try it.
1 Like
Sure sounds interesting.
It quite literally is actually
Weakest radar
Weakest A2G
Average A2A (if not weaker in a number of situations)
The only thing going for it is a slightly above average FM which Gaijin keeps nerfing despite sources to the contrary.
And that’s without mentioning other nerfs like the state of BOL, IRST or DASS
If they fix the radar, FM and A2G loadout, along with some other rather critical bug fixes i’d agree, but at the moment I’d place the Rafales Su-30 and F-15E/I above it currently, given the meta is missiles not guns.
3 Likes
Again it’s radar is nowhere near the weakest, it’s a2a is fine and a fairly strong loadout, no comment on a2g as I do not play gamemodes where that’s relavent, and I was notably explicitly talking about flight performance which none of these factors effect.
And FM is irrelevant most of the time given the meta