Also
4 Likes
I have not found any information on what Eurofighter’s specific definition of “supercruise” is.
If we assume the bare minimum of “able to maintain flight at this speed, for some undefined length of time, without using afterburner” then that still leaves us with two possibilities:
- Eurofighter is underperforming in game (it is impossible to maintain Mach 1.5 for any length of time at 100% throttle).
- Eurofighter GmbH is outright lying and any form of sustained flight at Mach 1.5 is not possible without afterburner.
The exact definition of supercruise is irrelevant to either point. If option 1 is true then the Eurofighter is underperforming however you define supercruise; and if you want to make the case that it can fly at Mach 1.5 without afterburner but inefficiently then that’s fine but it is still going to be more efficient than flying with afterburner so would be a net improvement compared to what we currently have. If you believe option 2 is true then it doesn’t matter how you define supercruise because it’s all a lie anyway.
So as I said arguing pedantics on the meaning of the word is a pointless discussion.
11 Likes
As I said before my post was removed, a specific definition from Eurofighter could provide us more insight and data that could be used to verify the in-game model with what is being said.
Example, they say 1.5 is the speed with the throttle on a cruise setting. If that is the case we would know the maximum dry thrust speed is higher than 1.5 and that it would need an increase in performance in the game.
If 1.5 is the maximum thrust top speed we know the thrust or drag is incorrect in the game and needs modified for whatever condition that is in.
Either way, the propaganda claims are not being taken at face value by Gaijin for the Eurofighter and so they should not be taken at face value for other fighters either.
and if that is what they are assuming, it just muddies bug reporting for all future, because if Primary sources can be rejected because the developers dont beleive that certain sources are true without any solid evidence then how can we trust anything will be modeled correctly in the future and how many other aircraft were buffed under similar circumstances
4 Likes
Again why do you believe the claims made by Lockheed but not Eurofighter GmbH?
4 Likes
I didn’t say that I didn’t believe Eurofighter
They denied reports for F-5 that were using natops, ultimately not even an unclassified manual would be sufficient in theory if they don’t believe in the source material…
…at a guess - because they don’t fit his narrow worldview? A few observations.
-
References to ‘propaganda’ whenever European aircraft are mentioned.
-
When primary sources are provided that show something he doesn’t agree with - he will argue that ‘obviously they are using a different testing metric’ or someother
-
A PARTICULAR hatred and loathing of the Typhoon in particular.
Maybe he’s got a historic reason to hate it so.
Actually I’m going with that theory. One day this gentleman is minding his own business somewhere in the Middle East.
The next - Woof - his tent gets smacked by a Paveway.
As he looks up he sees a familiar, delta-winged canard jet arcing up into the sky. Flying it is the reincarnation of Biggles with scarf and everything. He waves in a slightly condescending manner as he RTBs.*
He there and then decide that he will take vengeance upon this machine of evil - by… erm …trying to get it nerfed on the War Thunder forums… okay the narrative might need a little work.
Some of the above post might contain satire. Use responsibly.
6 Likes
Quiet ironic as hell
3 Likes
This is simply not going anywhere… as per usual.
Please clarify your doubts/issues in PMs and keep on discussing thread-related contents. Thanks.
9 Likes
I’d offer you some popcorn, but I just ran out.
3 Likes
Sharing been illegal now remember lol
I mean you guys are really enjoying piling on the guy. But he does make a point. If BAE or Eurofighter (insert company here) has a set definition for that preformance then we know if the aircraft is underpreforming or not. If BAE or Eurofighter (insert company here)definition is 1.5+ the typhoon is under preforming. If BAE
or Eurofighter (insert company here) definition is 1.0+ then the typhoon might not be underperforming.
Might be best to make some enquiries in the UK weaponry thread - it’s a bit less anarchic…sort of.
Although I would imagine that non-classified sources on the innards of a RAF Typhoon are thin on the ground. Every documentary I’ve seen has had some very specific editing to blur out a lot of the functionality…
i’m looking forward to all the fixes for the eurofighter and also for the gripen radar as well.
as long they are not implented, i still fly in custom matches and faceroll mig-23m’s with the eurofighter.
As far as I am aware the sources simply state that supercruise can achieve mach 1.5 and the context of that figure is with a standard A2A fit which I think is 2+4.
Supercruise should simply be considered “the ability to reach and or maintain super-sonic speeds without reheat”
the exact defintition ultimately doesnt matter. In-game, with a totally clean airframe, the Typhoon just about manages to reach mach 1.4.
1 Like
Honestly, at the moment, like with most things cockpit/sim related, It will come if/when the devs can be bothered. At the moment I consider the priority
- Fixing/Finishing the radar
- loadout improvements and adjustments (I.e Brimstone 2s)
- Flight model improvements and refinement (like the supercruise speed)
- DASS improvements (BOL overhaul, RWR, PD MAWS, etc)
- MFDs and other cockpit releated fixes
5 Likes
Super sonic is 1.1 so it simply being considered the ability to reach and maintain super sonic speed without reheat is present in game.
It states a supercruise speed of Mach 1.5.