I know that, I just don’t understand why you repeatedly deny and refuse publicly available information, while knowing that the majority of all detailed data on aspects of in-service aircraft is classified. What are we supposed to do? We’ll give you data from a manufacturer, sometimes a brochure or website page, and you’ll call it “Marketing”. We gave you so, so many different sources for the Eurofighter’s thrust, and all we got was “Not installed thrust”. On that point, why does the Eurofighter loose so much more thrust due to channel loss than the Rafale? We don’t have the data, which means you deliberately nerfed the Eurofighter to an unrealistic and unproven degree solely because you wanted to, while buffing the Rafale’s thrust beyond what it should have. The Eurofighter has repeatedly been nerfed into the ground, and you seem to think that all the data we give you just isn’t good enough. So please, tell me; What data you you expect us to get, where do you expect us to get it, and why isn’t clear numbers given by the manufacturer enough for you?
Just so you know. Technical moderators, like many others, are mostly volunteers.
Well then who am I supposed to talk to? Gaijin bug report mods just close reports and after like politicians. They won’t accept what we give them. They list proper sources as
- OEM Manuals (primary source): User manuals, repair manuals, factory manuals, operating manuals, technical manuals etc. Single source is required (preferred source).
- Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships (‘coffee table books’), biographies, specialist books, “expert” opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
The manuals are classified, and they don’t even listen to Data from the manufacturer, so what do they want us to do?
Rafalе’s changes today were very interesting, taking into account the bug report. I went to see what the bug report was.
I especially liked the parts " where Rafale pilot Lieutenant Le Bars directly states that the Rafale offers “better sustained turn rates than the F16 at low, medium and high levels”." and “I downloaded the HUD video to go through it frame-by-frame (this one has 24 frames/s) to try to accurately measure sustained horizontal turnrates for the Rafale.”
Did I understand correctly - one of the arguments in the proof is the pilot’s assertion, which, as we remember, could well be a marketing lie, and the other proof is generally frame-by-frame measurements on a video that was obviously edited and we are not sure that the video was not slowed down or sped up?
Well, Gaijin’s interpretation of what accounts as credible sources seems to be extremely inconsistent, I’ve experienced it firsthand when helping make reports for some nations.
To be completely fair, Rafale was probably underperforming in terms of turn rate before this change.
You do realize there are additional information that is only visible for bug reporter and mods in that report right?
I have a sneaking suspicion ordinance RCS is much MUCH too high in WT, which would explain why they so reliably decoy radars atm.
When leaving the rail the missile is going about the same speed as the launch aircraft, but will travel along a more direct trajectory, which could make your radar more likely to track it instead of the other radar signature with a lower closure rate and worse aspect ratio. You’d tthink the difference in RCS would make the difference, but seeing as we can reliably pick up things like AMRAAM’s at 20km+ with most radars in-game despite the fact that irl, a larger missile like the HARM can only be picked up by something like a pantsir radar (which should be much higher performance than most airborne radars in use in-game) at ~3km iirc (ill try to find the quote to solidify this claim), I think its possible to deduce missile RCS might be much too high in-game, leading to the frequent decoying of your missiles by adversary missiles.
Its pretty tragic some of the parts of those manuals cant be used.
I mean, you can post them here but only once
/JOKE
Gaijin have never accepted videos.
They are going to have 2 unclassified sources
They will, but they won’t accept them for anything that could be manipulated. like things regarding time. People in the past sped up a video of a Chinese tanks to buff it’s turret rotation time iirc.
But they will accept videos for visual things like HUDs, sooty exhausts, etc or distance things like turning radius
Interviews from a reputable source I think can be used as a secondary source
Definitely are after the Su-34 KH-38 was added even things like Marksman spaag can reliably lock and track missiles.
Before this change you wouldnt be able to lock it.
Stormer and ADATs are the same the only SAM that could shoot down ordinance reliably was…you guessed it the Pantsir.
Interviews with manufacturers do count as primary
that bug report contains information that you cant see.
So stop talking without actual information about it.
Maybe the radar bugs out in practice, but the range should not be that small:
15 km for a 0.03 m^2 target. This is for the tracking radar (multifunction radar, as they call it), which can also scan for targets, so maybe the figure is worse for the search radar.
Spoiler
Not classified, don’t worry - Community Bug Reporting System
Which is what I said, go find someone else to argue with
Probably got the number wrong, cant find the source atm so take that number with a massive pinch of salt, either way seems wrong that the airborne radars in-game barring the newest/most powerful ones can pick up missiles reliably at extended ranges.
They should model the RCS of missiles better, would give the R-77 a huge disadvantage.
Looking around the Leonardo offerings, they seem to quote ~4-24km, or so. So it seems to very much be system specific and be about what could be expected. Especially if we consider any potential for RCS being actively taken into account in the design of the missile, since they don’t exactly state the assumed RCS / velocity for each category.