Eurofighter Typhoon (UK versions) - Technical data and discussion (Part 1)

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
258

Considering a Russian Main went on a 1000 post tyrade in the R&R thread because the 279 went from 8.7 to 9.0 that included multiple death threats and massive racial slurs… Are you really sure its the Brits and US that complain all the time?

But quite frankly. If in doubt, play soviets. They will always have strong stuff, that is a fact of WT, accept it. but quite frankly. till the F-16C, no nation can even come close to the Mig-29 in A2A, that is a fact, again, Im not surprised about people not reporting things that would result in nerfs to your own vehicle. You wouldnt shoot yourself in the foot to win a race (especially if you are playing Britain and already have manacles attached to both feet)

I am 100% certain that every nation sits on the reports that would nerf them. Id not be surprsied if there was someone on this forum that had information pertaining to ERA on the T-80BVM not being quite as good as it is in game for example. That ERA is just extreme.

But pinning it ONLY on Brit mains is just stupid and childish and it simply isnt true… I dont think there is a more active set of threads on the forums than the British ones when it comes to bug reports and fact finding. Look at the state of many British vehicles before and now. But again, not all reports are good. Red Tops Id argue are one of the most underperforming weapon systems in the game right now. Full Stop. They got nerfed last patch. Probably reported by a brit main. So I call BS on it being ONLY Brits.

Prehaps… But when you get 1… maybe if you are lucky 2, top tier vehicles per year (With no guarantees that they are actually going to be even remotely viable in “top tier”) and everyone else seems to get something new literally every. single. update. Then you get very much excited for that 1 vehicle. US and Soviets will probably see a dozen new vehicles in 2024. Britain… Probably only one. and that will be EFT. The aircraft we’ve been waiting for for the better part of a year, by the time we get it, probably 2… Its natural to be excited for that rare addition and prehaps hype it up a bit.

3 Likes
260

How did they get nerfed? I thought they were buffed.

261

No one did, rather I’ve noticed there’s a lot of unreported shortcomings from documentation that has been held onto by Brit mains. No one else has access to this stuff.

262

Your acting as if people who have these documents should be reporting every little thing like it’s there job 😂 jfc

2 Likes
263

I’ll summarise the last couple of patches for British Mains:
This upcoming patch (correct as of 21/10/23) we will get: A Strikemaster (not even TT, Battlepass) - an M109 that most of NATO is getting - and a Rooikat but worse.
Last Patch we got: A Sea Harrier that was literally a copypaste of the SQN one, minus 2 9Ls - a worse T-90A that we have no actual relation to building (i’ll not go down that road too much) - and 9Ms for the Harrier GR.7. whoopie.
The one before that: a SARC Car, a nearly copypaste Vickers MBT, and a nearly copypaste HMS Diana
And before that: we got our Tornado F.3 (too little too late) - we finally got a Challenger 2 with decent mobility (TOO LITTLE TOO LATE AGAIN) and a Churchill with a Sherman mantlet
And in Apex Predators: we became Apex Prey with the joke of an aircraft that is the Tornado GR.1 and still using the Phantoms as “top tier aircraft”

And people wonder why Brit mains complain like there’s no tomorrow.

I genuinely can’t be bothered to apply reason and logic to certain statements above so i’ll just say this:

If you genuinely believe British stuff is broken as all hell, a) refer to the raft of bug reports made on the Tornado F.3, Harrier GR.7, the dumpster fire that is the “should Phantom get Nine Lima” discussion, and then refer to the BRs

It feels extremely insulting to say “Brit mains complain the most” given that the American side of the Forums exist, and anyway even if we did, are you truly surprised? xD

4 Likes
264

This is air RB not space RB. Your “conditional” is meaningless, and just another desperate attempt for you to move the goalposts after been proven wrong about something.

265

Give one example lmao.

No one did, rather I’ve noticed there’s a lot of unreported shortcomings from documentation that has been held onto by Brit mains. No one else has access to this stuff.

Are you serious?

266

It makes perfect sense - GJN is biased towards content for the US/USSR.

267

U forgot to mention that it is wrongly modeled lol

2 Likes
268

Anything specifically wrong with the 2E? Or just usual “we make our tanks heavy for fun and not protection” shenanigans?

269

It really depends on how you look at things, both nations have by far the largest number of options prospectively available to them and yet don’t even receive their fair share of available designs that get added, let alone if we were looking at the percent of of overall additions, even if you don’t count duplicated vehicles in other trees outside of their design nation, let alone specific variants and modifications.

Part of the issue is that the limit of ~20 or so vehicles that get added each patch are now spread across 10 nations each with a number of Trees that they could fit into, and of those not all of them will be suitable to any given player so the number of relevant additions per patch on average has reduced over time as nations and features have been added. Take for example the B-57B to F-105D gap it lasted [2495 days; 6 years, 10 months] it took a while for the RP cost of modifications to be reduced, I doubt that we would see the B-57G Tropic Moon III (first aircraft to be able to self designate for SALH ordnance) which would be a nice addition though anachronistic at this point considering what it would be up against.

Or that they deliberately hold back additions, and features to artificially induce attention ( F-86F, F-86K / F-86D, A-4M /A-4N, AV-8B(NA) / Harrier GR.7, AV-8B+, (US) F-4E & AN/AVQ-23 & -26) or try and double dip (A-6E TRAM vs F-4S release patches) by creating obvious flaws in lineups and mechanics (AGM-65 and the implementation of Contrast / Correlation seekers)

Putting aside instances where implementation is straight up broken (e.g. AN/AXX-1 TCS on the F-14B, AGM-65, M1A1-KVT, etc.) or abstracted (Radars & SARH mechanics have gone though how many revisions at this point?) it’s pretty obvious at this point. That some trees are causing issues (Japan, Sweden, Israel) and Gaijin’s seemingly doggard outlook on keeping the stream vehicles flowing, to keeping wales interested with a Meta addition and shifting lineups around.

Personally if it were up to me we’d have stopped adding nations with either France or Italy, increased the number of subtrees and only now be reaching the late 60’s early 70’s designs across the board(Air, Land, Sea, Rotor, etc.) at around the same BR to ease people into the shifting meta as reliable missiles are introduced.

At this point think the best way to look at it is that it’s probably for the best that they are rushing for AMRAAMs, and managed to avoid adding the F-15E(X) /Su-30 or F-22 so we still have at least a patch to go before things become much more frustrating(Arcade is going to be Macross tier with the potential for more than 400 Fox-3’s to be in the air, refreshing every 40 seconds).

270

as far as i am aware the challenger 2e engine deck is completly wrong modeled, it has a bigger engine and needs to be raised etc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/o4Y8uHqcvB7h

I dont think they acutaly fixed that one yet

271

Would you be so kind as to divulge the details of these ‘number of unreported things’ so that I may duly report them?

Judging by your previous correspondence, it appears you have conducted thorough research on the subject. Therefore, I presume you possess the necessary sources for these reports. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. :)

2 Likes
272

The fixed the visual model but iirc the internal layout and fuel tanks are wrong in the dm

273

The entire model was incorrect in its dev server release

so erm.
yeah, everything i guess xD

274

Didn’t they get a slight G pull nerf?

275

I’ve already begun reporting one of the issues, safe/arm fuse delays. Will continue to report further stuff when I’m able (won’t be for another week, not home).

1 Like
276

I mean, imagine being a Sweden/German/British/other that isn’t Russia or US main right now, couldn’t be at all frustrating right?

It would’ve been nice to, for example, give countries platforms with Fox 3s that would have the advantage of being able to support multiple missiles in flight but couldn’t launch them at high speeds (which would give them additional range… unless someone wants to break some physics models today)

Which would’ve been a good opportunity to add Harrier II +, Sea Harrier, Yak 130 (with R-77? idk if that’s a thing), Su-25TM (no that does not mean give the Su-39 prem R-77s, just no), etc etc. the only nations i’m not sure would be covered is France, Japan and America off the top of my head

of course, we could just ignore that exciting potential with different styles of gameplay and once again hand a honking great big advantage to the Americaboos and copy paste as needed. rather than introduce some diverse airframes that would otherwise probably not fit the game. debatable, but at least more debatable than the current likelihood which is probably going to be awful for most nations.

277

America could get AV8B+ for AMRAAM as well, France and Japan are the only outstanding problem

1 Like
278

good point. Japan would be a bit of a nightmare, since most of their trainers (that i’ve briefly glanced over) didn’t bother with AMRAAM usage. France’s Alpha Jet is very much in the same boat, and the lack of AMRAAM integration. I suppose an early variant of the MICA perhaps? I’d really need someone with a bit more knowledge for the french. perhaps a Mirage F1 carried one?