I can understand it from the Devs point of view. If you know that the FM you are working on is nowhere near finished, and you plan to keep working on it to the point where it will not resemble the current state anymore , then having hundreds of reports submitted on it just wastes everyone’s time.
Compared to something like the cockpit where you might think it is pretty much done so appreciate the reports.
Has there been any dev comment regarding the radar?
Looks like a tweaked Blue Vixen currently. I imagine it will stay that way until people submit reports.
Improved? Or downgraded? :>
Gunjob, we know you’re excited as well, give us estimates if possible.
If you’re being held hostage - you can answer with “^” for improvement and “v” for a downgrade.
Yeah, here’s hoping though that the Devs plan a sort of “buffed” blue vixen placeholder until then.
And if you need to be rescued from your kidnappers, cough twice
:P
Probably improvement in some aspects
downgrade in others
Just the way it is. The FM on Dev was a quick pass to get it ready for the teasers etc. Think it’s more a product of the smaller time window we’re working with after the last patch ran over abit.
I’m currently expecting a minor, but overall buff to the airframe
I’m expecting some aspects to be nerfed a little.
Yeah, some things nerfed, some things buffed, but as an overall net outcome for it to be for the positive. Things like the big boost to dry thrust would be quite major based upon my experience on the dev so far. the afterburner is really thirsty, especially with no tanks yet
Sorta, but my point was more “why close it now when you can recheck it later when the “completed” FM comes?”
I guess its in the realm of theyd rather waste the bug reporters time than the bug report managers which is understandable from a business perspective, but on the other hand, we’ve had many MANY FM’s come as “not complete” in the dev server, only to come unchanged to live, such as the F-15E/I most recently…
Clutter, just imagine the sheer amount of bug reports rn.
I’ll look into that.
Wiki page (not sure how well source it is) for the EFT put the flat fuel consumption on reheat at ~3x that of mil power, and the specific fuel consumption at ~2x, so it really shouldnt be that thirsty compared to some other jets, such as the american ones…
Allegedly this is data straight from RR’s fact sheet on the EJ200 as well, tho I cant find the fact sheet, so I cant speak to its veracity.
Should be about 18 minutes on reheat and 59 minutes on dry. But fuel consumption is a FM thing and we’re placeholder.
Wait seriously? 59 mins on dry? Considering the fuel load of the EFT (no bags) and the burn rate on the wiki, I calculated itd be ~30-32min on dry, since there are 2 engines being used?
Lmfao basically gaijin don’t understand how it’s possible so therefore it’s a lie from the manufacturers
The fuel section Flame wrote
"The fuel consumption of the EJ200 is listed in the Eurojet EJ200 Brochure as 47-49 g/kNs with reheat and 21-23 g/kNs without reheat.
This means that when operating in reheat (afterburner) the engine will burn 47-49 grams of fuel per second for each kilonewton of thrust it produces; and when operating without afterburner it will burn 21-23 grams of fuel per second for each kilonewton of thrust it produces.So for example if the EJ200 is operating at its full 90 kN of afterburner thrust it will burn 4.23 - 4.41 kg of fuel per second, or 253.8 - 264.6 kg of fuel per minute. This means that with the engine producing its maximum 90 kN of static thrust in afterburner the Eurofighter’s fuel load of ~4,700 kg would last for around 18 minutes. And with the engine producing its maximum dry thrust of 60 kN the fuel load would last for about 59 minutes."
I messed my math up there. That was assuming there was only one engine using the fuel. There are two engines so the endurance is 1/2 what I estimated.
