does this mean we gonna see missile seeker fov in the hmd?
They are insane on the Typhoon, not sure what you are smoking.
smells like it
the .nut file. kinky naming scheme wth
Engine thrust at static and 0.75 mach sea level matches within reasonable percentage the known documentation so this checks out. Too bad it has F-16 sydrome being able to out-maneuver thrust vectoring sukhois.
I do think the performance above mach and at altitude is maybe overperforming in STR, underperforming at low alts and lower speeds in spite of the thrust being correct. Don’t really know the reasoning for this. I suppose the L/D ratios and stuff need adjusted by AoA or whatever.
I have no idea, but I really hope so. Had a moment earlier tonight where I had a 50/50 chance my Aim-9M was locked onto the right target (was fairly certain, but you never know) and I didnt have time to faf with IRST and I didnt want to alert the guy with a radar lock.
Mach .9 is not the optimal climb profile and is something RAF will adhere to due to noise regulations. The current plane in-game can meet the under 2:30 second benchmark by about 6 seconds if the climbing profile is adjusted to a higher speed.
However this doesn’t change the fact that on lower fuel states it shatters all world records from 9000m to 15000m…and it doesn’t do it by small margins either. The current live flight model can reach 15,000m in 84 seconds if the fuel load is optimized; this is 46 seconds faster than the 1998 P-42 world record of 128 seconds.
The whole entire flight model is a mess. It has been documented that the Eurofighter has an angle of attack limit that is around 24-25 degrees and that the one are where the plane does not excel at is slow speed fighting; in-game the damping limit for AoA is set to around 30 degrees and the manual limit allows the plane to do backflips in-place.
1 Like
I did not see @Fireball_2020 's report on sustained turn rate until now;
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/i2HoH7KckE4v?comment=rOFXMJFJnTospEl3NBnsgX6m
The idea is that the EAP (which has by far a superior wing and canard design from an energy-maneuverability standpoint) can do 20 deg/s so the Eurofighter must also? Is that the case?
Are there hard written requirements for 20 deg/s peak sustained turn rate? Is there a dedicated source for that?
As far as I can tell, the comparison draws from “The EAP could do it, so should the Eurofighter” or “EAP did it, so it must have been a requirement”. That mindset is flawed.
@Gunjob In an effort to reduce the weight of the aircraft the usual 1.5x safety buffer for G limits was reduced. The current load limit is erroneous.
Primary Source (fixed link)
@BBCRF Eurofighter wings are not nearly as strong as claimed.
1 Like
Slowly but surely getting the hang of the Typhoon in sim. Finding the key change I need to make is to embrace flying high, not fear it. In something like a Tornado F3. Climbing was a sure-fire way to get killed. But now… in the Typhoon, its the key to success.
But man, in addition to the radar improvements, I really want them to allow you to control the elevation of your radar whilst keeping relative control. Being able to angle the radar down would be really helpful, but I also want to be able to point my nose at a target and not have to worry about where my radar is looking.
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?
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?
3 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.
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.