Yes, thats him
Air show footage based on that we should nerf the Spitfire…
I havent seen a Spitfire at an airshow exceed 350mph.
Airshows are just that shows, pilots still have to operate the aircraft in a careful measured manner.
If we are going to accept airshow footage as a metric of how an aircraft should fly then we may as well accept pilot testimonies too.
ye I did this 3 months ago at the same time as my bug report
in-game 82kN static is 16723.3kgf
108% throttle is 16539kgf
which gives
~18.9/19.0 deg/s compared to 18.44 @ SL M0.65 +0.5 deg/s over
15.0 deg/s compared to 13.84 @ 3048m M0.7 +1.2 deg/s over
In the current game after the FM changes you get:
(>1 deg/s over)
At higher altitudes the difference gets larger, and off burner it has always met its setpoint (and still does in the live game)
Wasn’t brought up but the accel is still overperforming, I re-ran the test for the 11km setpoint with reduced thrust and it is still 27% over the estimate (and above the requirement as well). Community Bug Reporting System its locked though so I can’t add the updated clip
Watch 11000m | Streamable
59s measured 80.4 given by source, overperforming by 27%
It seems like a stretch to say its underperforming by any measure, but if you can find a data point that it underperforms on compared to EFA MOD PE and send me a clip I’d love to see it.
As an aside, why do people being up the major projects report in an attempt to prove that all conditions of the ESR-D were met? It explicitly compared performance to “key requirements” only, and STR in afterburner was not one of them.
2 Likes
Can i just politely ask if these tests have been done on all of the top tier aircraft because it seems awfully convenient that the eurofighter would be the only one that you’re deeming as “overperforming”, since its the only one you’re constantly bug reporting as such ig all the other aircraft are perfectly fine by your logic
If this was the case, wouldn’t you expect other planes to perform worse too and not just the eurofighter?
16C
20.5 deg/s (1050 frames, 17.5 seconds for a 360)
29 9-12 (with center tank)
17.5 deg/s (1232 frames, 20.5 seconds for a 360)
and one more just for fun:
F-35A
17.1 deg/s (1260 frames, 21 seconds for a 360)
This is starting to get off topic though, the issue at hand is that with 100% internal fuel in the live game, the EF outperforms the actual plane with an unknown amount under 100% by 2 deg/s. These clips also demonstrate performance under the ESR-D requirements. The clips of other aircraft I could find fall within their possible range of internal fuel and don’t have the same issue.
1 Like
Thats no definite proof tho…
1 Like
I’ve only reported M2000, M4000 (for a buff), Rafale, and EF. There is much more in-depth, publicly available data for the rest of the 4th gens (F-16, F-15, F-18 etc etc etc), and those planes are modeled much more accurately in-game. Rest assured if the F-16 or w/e was performing 2 deg/s higher than it’s charts or videos or w/e, I would report it too
Lmao using airshow videos as proof 🤣 you cannot use videos like that as proof as you do not know the fuel loads the amount of thrust and how hard they are pulling.
It really depends on the level of accuracy. This is a game and exceptions are made.
You can see in this clip the Typhoon turn rate is higher than when flown by the Spanish display team.
Even carrying a centre line tank.
Roll rate also looks a little slower in game compared to how quickly the Typhoon can snap roll.
F-16 nose authority and high alpha are not realistic at all though and are more egregious than the Typhoon.
1 Like
Roll rate for most top tier aircraft is significantly worse than they should. That’s because the instructor tends to break the wings off during high roll rate pulling maneuvers
again you can’t use Air show videos as proof of performance since there is variable information about anything from fuel to ammo pylons temperature altitude if the pilot feels like pulling fully or not and many more.
i hope Videos that you send don’t convince Gijin with such unconventional evidence of performance this is one of the worst ways to find out performance unless it acceeds in-game performances
Just to clarify airshow displays are not accepted by the Devs as any form of meaningful evidence on the limits or performance of an aircraft.
Not only is there a multitude of unknowns just from camera perspective/speed, fuel loads, stores etc but also operational limits placed on public displays which can differ between different nations even operating the same type of aircraft.
Displays are also constructed based on geographical limitations (airspace, display area, weather limits, visibility etc) and the operational stress tolerances (to prolong airfeame life and reduce the risk of fatigue on operational frontline aircraft) permitted by that respective nations air force.
As such, videos of that nature are not used to create or judge the real performance of an aircraft.
17 Likes
yep, I wasn’t intending on reporting a specific performance setpoint based off clips from an airshow.
Can you explain why this video was used? There is no provided fuel load as well, and the report just assumes a random fuel %. Community Bug Reporting System
And do you know what happened with this? Community Bug Reporting System or if I can add new clips from after the FM change?
The report used 3 other documents with reference to performance.
This report is currently open still.
2 Likes
Yes 82 kN is 8,361.7 kg which is a total of 16,723.3 kg for two engines.
However ~82 kN is static thrust used for the estimates and does not include channel losses (or whatever you want to call it).
IIRC Gaijin use ~5.5% as the channel loss for Eurofighter, so if you apply that same channel loss to the 82 kN static thrust you get 77.9 kN (7,944 kgf) per engine as thrust to test with in game.
6 Likes
Those videos are not even worth discussing. We have no way of telling:
- What the fuel load is
- Whether the engines are actually at full afterburner
- Whether the aircraft is changing speed or altitude (if so it’s not a sustained turn)
- What speed the aircraft is flying at (the 20°/s requirement is specifically for Mach 0.65)
They provide no useful information within the context of this discussion.
5 Likes
Channel losses are included in the estimate, it states that explicitly.
They include channel losses in their modelling, but they are applied in addition to the various other thrust reductions they mention. If you tally up those thrust reductions you get to ~82.1 kN of thrust before accounting for channel losses.
3 Likes
In that case, its not a 1:1 comparison from 90kN, your channel loss % should come from 87.3 kN (uninstalled, but with the nozzle fitted) (the final aircraft uses the same nozzle as well).
Then you have 2.6% loss total, which if applied to 82.1kN results in 79.9kN, or 159.8kN/16295kgf total, which is just 200kgf under what I tested with which is not much of a difference. 107% THR is 16141kgf, which is 154 kgf under that, which I can test if you want.
That’s my bad in assuming that the 2.7kN was for both the nozzle and being installed in the acft
and if you ignore the above entirely, 77.9 kN is 106% which it also overperforms with.
I also kept lowering throttle on the previous FM until it could meet the STR given in the performance estimate and that ended up being 71kN / 103%, so there’s still a fair way to go anyways.
Watch 103THR | Streamable ← more or less the same deal in the current iteration
No matter how you slice it, its overperforming in STR with this data.
3 Likes