I honestly find this to be the bane of my existence when trying to do BVR at high altitude, because if you want to engage targets who are at low altitude, most of the time you also need to LOSE altitude in order to get a successful lock angle for your radar. Which… kinda defeats the purpose of being at high altitude xD
Yeah, and its really annoying that the options exist to angle down. But are so inconvenient to use, that no one bothers.
It’s things like this that honestly make me wanna just uninstall and wait at least a year until they either overhaul the game modes so Top Tier is actually engaging, like Sim with its EC maps that Gaijin just don’t want to bring to RB. OR they overhaul the still incredibly arcade-like consistency of radars in-game
Down to what values? 1.49x? 1.48x? 1.47x? 1.3x? 1.1x?
1 Like
Yeah, I can think of a good dozen setting/control related changes they could make that would be fantastic, but they simply wont.
If I had exact values I would have made a report already, but I wanted to inform the tech moderators that the current limit is not correct.
Isnt 1.5 the standard they apply to ALL aircraft, just because exact IRL data is tough to come by and it just makes life simpler?
9 Likes
The source he’s citing isn’t drawing its conclusions from the EAP, but from DA prototypes fitted with RB199s, namely DA1 & DA2:
^ German DA1 for reference.
1 Like
The current flight model can sustain around 22 degrees per second at all speeds with 50% fuel.
It is probably underperforming in terms of initial turn rate because it only reaches around 27 degrees per second at 9G and it is definitely overperforming in terms of low speed turn rate due to the AoA limit being set to 30 degrees in damping/fbw controls and being able to do backflips in full manual controls.
In sim it easily beats Rafale at all speed ranges with manual controls. The one area of the flight envelope where the Eurofighter is documented to suffer is low speed and high AoA and this is not reflected in-game.
Likewise, the F-16 has similar issues. AoA is not a problem for it, both aircraft can do cartwheels and recover without issue. TVC Sukhoi stuff.
I don’t see the source, only a document suggesting it meets ‘requirements’, how he’s ascertained the requirements is what I am discussing.
Duh. Ask him in DMs then, I’ve seen his source and as far as I am aware, EAP had already already been retired by then, so the only jet(s) that could’ve fulfilled the requirements he’s talking about were actual EFA prototypes, i.e DA airframes.
2 Likes
The issue is much more egregious in sim because the Eurofighter is even better at bridging the gap from low to high AoA fighting than the F-16 is. F-16 can pull very high AoA but it is much easier to compensate for than Eurofighter.
1 Like
It is documents on the DA series of aircraft with downrated EJ200s
None of the documents flame has used where from the EAP
No, they are not “insane”. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
The only document linked has no data to speak of, just says the Eurofighter is “expected to meet” XYZ criteria or not.
The turn rate data is presumably of the EAP and not the DA1/2
He talks about weaker engine prototype, that is DA Typhoon, not EAP. And you do not see all the documents.
4 Likes
How did you decide that he was talking about the EAP? The report literally says nothing about this, in the attached source the EAP is mentioned ONCE.
2 Likes
It is not i have said what the data is from
And everything is sorted
Honestly I have found them to be very underwhelming. Damage wise they’re alright, but time to target is atrocious. Any longer ranged shot will take 30+ seconds (straight up lol when you compare it to what a Su-34 or Rafale can do within those 30+ seconds), and close range (~10 seconds of flight time) shots put you in in range of basically every top tier SPAA.