Flame has a report in for it being wrong
2 Likes
I’m so jealous of the Germans at the moment, the British one doesnt have access to the cockpit yet so can’t have a play in sim controls properly yet
why wouldnt they just copy paste the cockpit model from the german EF tho
are there any differences?
Hopefully when we get it though they will have implemented isurus’ report on the switches being backlit irl.
The current eurofighter cockpit might be the best in the game.
1 Like
You DO realise that computational abilities and aviation design in general has moved since 1997 don’t you…
Your logic is akin to arguing that cars were calculated as having long braking distances in the 1960s (with drum brakes and cross-ply tyres) so ergo that same calculation MUST surely apply to a vehicle designed in 2024.
If you want an example from the late Cold War with minimal losses from the ground rig to as-installed - look no further than the RB199 as applied to the Tornado. Quite a clever bit of kit - which also powered the EAP (Typhoon progenitor until the superior EJ200 became available).
However if you want to abide by the calculations that were rendered defunct literally two generations ago - then knock yourself right out.
2 Likes
@Gunjob this one we should adress for the sake of everyones grind xD else we are rocking 4 missles until tier 4 mods
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/3m01zI8SZblu
[DEV] Eurofighter Stock Loadout position should be changed
3 Likes
The intake and engine of the Eurofighter has not.
Comparing 1960’s brakes to 2024 brakes is a stretch when comparing a 1997 document to an engine that was first run in 1991 on an airframe that flew in 1994.
The RB199 is not special, the thrust rating was incorrectly stated for bench vs installed as they must not have followed a similar doctrinal system as the US DOD’s MIL-E-5007/8 standards. The new restricted documents will show the same, physics didn’t just change just because the currently in-use documentation is restricted.
3 Likes
The RB199 is not special, the thrust rating was incorrectly stated for bench vs installed as they must not have followed a similar doctrinal system as the US DOD’s MIL-E-5007/8 standards. The new restricted documents will show the same, physics didn’t just change just because the currently in-use documentation is restricted.
Oh dear. We’re showing a bit of the WT dev mindset here aren’t we. 'Well I can’t work out they did it so it MUST be impossible!'. Allow me to assist.
Firstly - the calcs were only derated for public viewing in 1997 - not produced at that date. They pre-date far further back than that. My illustration was dated as such for a reason…
Secondly - you don’t know what efficiency metrics they used for calculating intake/channel/other losses. If you did, you wouldn’t be daft enough to post on the WT forum. There ARE losses on any gas turbine - but not the arbitrary 10% you claim must apply to every engine, irrespective of design, technology and overall config.
Thirdly - you don’t know what the restricted documents say so you really can’t go pontificating what they WILL say.
2 Likes
You tell me how an engine that was calculated with uninstalled thrust can turn around and have zero inlet or nozzle loss coefficient? Physics does not work this way.
The document was updated almost yearly since 1973, I assure you it was “with the times”.
WE do know, and they’re public information. Turbofans are not some magic hidden technology. What is secretive is the materials technology that allows the temperature and pressure limits. Unless you are talking about the EJ200 or F404, they pretty much laid that all out to bare for the public.
If the previously restricted document says gravity’s pull is 9.81 m/s and the new document says otherwise I would question who wrote the new document. Likewise, if the new document says there is no such thing as intake losses or nozzle drag coefficients - then I would question who wrote the new document. These factors are not frictionless. Pick up a book or find a source that agrees with your nonsense. If the EJ200 was incorrectly calculated for uninstalled thrust and matches the installed thrust, that is an error on their part when doing the calculations.
3 Likes
you wanna redo your report your ammo belt report for the typhoons? we might get them trough now.
Just if possible get the PT round changed for PELE-T as well?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/w2dvB7Yx96RA
or for starters @Gunjob couldnt we link this existing report to the eurofighters and bump it since they use the same cannon and belts?
i think this is what they did for the puma cannon and kf41 as well
On another matter, do we have anything on the SAPHEI fuze delay?
4 Likes
@Flame2512 What does the Europe demand “Zero visible smoke” mean? In the US this means no smoke beyond “X” distance from nozzle, as opposed to absolutely no visible smoke.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ofvf4zvUTsAn
ex;
Source & proof of public distribution
Spoiler
Do you see any smoke coming from those engines in the videos in that bug report?
Cause, i did not.
@Smin1080p_WT what camos could we expect on the FGR4? I’m really wanting to see this piece of excellence
6 Likes
You’ll have to stay tuned. However I think the ones selected wont disappoint.
8 Likes
Is this the part where i ask for E** camo?
4 Likes
This is the part where you get banned.
22 Likes
i mean, if a war thunder live creator makes a skin and it gets put into the loot box…
:O
This is a full sentence
1 Like
What about the standard texture? Is that a work in progress, because it looks more like a temporary version at the moment with British insignia slapped on without much attention given to size and placement
I was thinking of doing a bug report on it, but the way it is I figured it’s just placeholder and not intended as the finished production skin
1 Like
As far as im aware the 3 default camos are not schedule for more changes. So a report would be appreciated and we can fire that off.
Work is underway on the additional camos for the 3 Typhoons.
2 Likes