G overload limiter
1 Like
ITR and STR
Acceleration and supercruise are the main ones
2 Likes
what documents have you been reading?
1 Like
Lol, dare to show what pages?
People have documents here that show even the prototype EF with weaker engines performs better than the EF we have currently in game. So yes it’s underperforming
1 Like
ah yes, due to collective stupidity the laws of physics do not apply to eurocanards (or anything with canards in game)
Does it really specify data about typhoon’s performance both ITR & STR? Either way typhoon is underperforming by quite a margin in game compared to other aircrafts, e.g radar, HMD lock, engine performance at subsonic speeds etc. They didn’t even bother giving the purple tint for the hud
Fits so well, I do wish the Spanish camo is in game I love the colour
1 Like
yes, the typhoons flight model in game is based on these requirements and the assumption that the plane met them
The document pre-dates the EJ200 engines, with the consortium that was formed leading to the EJ200 only being formed back in 1986 from what I can find.
ITR has been bug reported and accepted as underperforming:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/75Meg57oyRDW
STR was also bug reported, with the devs responding the in-game EFT is actually performing below ESR-D requirements, but are considering it “close enough”
So no, its not overperforming, its still underperforming the numbers in that document.
2 Likes
As stated above, the in-game typhoon underperforms the requirements to some degree, with the devs considering them “close enough”.
where are the performance figures for the one with the EJ200 engines then
Pretty sure there aren’t any that are public. That being said, we know the EFT at the very least met (likely exceeded) all requirements barring landing distance:
So saying the EFT is overperforming is wrong. Its underperforming by at least a little, possibly a lot.
Out of curiosity what did they want the landing distance to be, if they didn’t believe it was achievable with the conditions they were working with?
No clue, I have limited access to the documents others have used to bug report stuff.
yes i said the fm is based on the assumption that the plane met all requirements, and it performs up to said requirements.
one question what makes you think it “likely exceeded”, were you involved in the development of the ef program at all, know anyone who has been involved, ever flown one irl perhaps, have been told this by someone who flew it irl?, do you have any form of source for that claim or do you just THINK it exceeded the requirements, are you just making baseless claims based off of vibes perhaps?
Landing distance was to be 700 m. It was only not met “in the most adverse conditions”
3 Likes
In game it falls short of a couple of them.
3 Likes
it falls short of them within the margin of error that gaijin deems acceptable, this margin is the same as every other aircraft in the game.
1 Like
IIRC Gaijin have denied bug reports before when the aircraft is within 5% of the expected value. Last time someone posted in game testing STR at Sea Level fell short by ~7.5% and STR at 10,000 ft dry power fell short by ~13%, so those two are outside Gaijin’s tolerance.
10 Likes