In what way do they act as prehistoric?
It would be better if they modelled the high altitude performance like it should. You cant get high and fast in it unlike others when it should be capable of, there’s a shit ton of drag(or lack of thrust) around the M0.9-M1.1 region and above M1.7. Community Bug Reporting System.
Even under military power, a real life F15C using a single engine has a higher ceiling than war thunder’s F15C using 2 engines due to lack of thrust
Community Bug Reporting System
But this isn’t a typhoon nor a gripen which get instant bug reports resolved by an inside lobby using marketing brochures as gospel. It is what it is.
6 Likes
this was tested in STD day conditions ingame right?
ofc, I was careful with the test. What gaijin claims is that they don’t adjust high altitude engine performance depending on airspeed of jets bc it cant be done as you can see on the report.
Yet… see the mirage change Update 2.33.0.33 - Updates - Game - War Thunder. and when you look at the code change it is literally thrust increase by brackets of speed(TAS) depending on altitude
1 Like
yeah its especialy BS because its not only an issue at high alt
its engines are significantly underperforming at low (subsonic) speeds at all altitudes
1 Like
it is what it is. The eagle just doesn’t have a inside lobby of bug report moderators spamming gripen and typhoon stuff. Like come one, they make the gripen have this
5 Likes
My brother Gripen doesn’t eat good on these days as well.
It got nerfed significantly in fm section while C and E models still lacks K band coverage which was reported ages ago.
I guess adding single K band coverage to Rwr is too much for Gaijin.
1 Like
comparing flight performance issue with mickey mouse MFD pages that only slightly matter to 1% of players
Wrong chart
That’s what im arguing, basic tangible FM/radar issues coming straight from the manuals(not marketing brochures nor expos in gulf states) while gripen/typhoon get niche stuff based on this bumped inside by mods like its gospel.
but they are literally telling you that they dont manually adjust 10km+ curve. The report only mentions 40 000 fake units
as you can see mirage4000 changes are from 6km-15km exactly (altitude2 to altitude 5)
modified aces.vromfs.bin_u/gamedata/flightmodels/fm/mirage_4000.blkx
@@ -1044,22 +1044,22 @@
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_6": 1.16,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_6": 0.67,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_7": 0.71,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_7": 1.22,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_7": 1.26,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_7": 0.71,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_8": 0.73,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_8": 1.3,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_8": 1.36,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_8": 0.73,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_9": 0.73,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_9": 1.42,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_9": 1.5,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_9": 0.73,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_10": 0.73,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_10": 1.5,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_10": 1.6,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_10": 0.73,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_11": 0.73,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_11": 1.6,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_11": 1.65,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_11": 0.73,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_2_12": 0.73,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_12": 1.65,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_2_12": 1.7,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_2_12": 0.73,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_0": 0.47,
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_0": 0.98,
@@ -1086,19 +1086,19 @@
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_7": 1.31,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_7": 0.54,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_8": 0.56,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_8": 1.42,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_8": 1.44,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_8": 0.56,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_9": 0.57,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_9": 1.55,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_9": 1.6,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_9": 0.57,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_10": 0.57,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_10": 1.7,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_10": 1.8,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_10": 0.57,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_11": 0.56,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_11": 1.85,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_11": 2.0,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_11": 0.56,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_3_12": 0.55,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_12": 1.95,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_3_12": 2.2,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_3_12": 0.55,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_0": 0.37,
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_0": 0.9,
@@ -1122,22 +1122,22 @@
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_6": 1.2,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_6": 0.38,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_7": 0.39,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_7": 1.34,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_7": 1.4,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_7": 0.39,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_8": 0.4,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_8": 1.5,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_8": 1.6,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_8": 0.4,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_9": 0.41,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_9": 1.65,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_9": 1.8,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_9": 0.41,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_10": 0.42,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_10": 1.75,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_10": 1.95,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_10": 0.42,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_11": 0.42,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_11": 1.85,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_11": 2.15,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_11": 0.42,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_4_12": 0.4,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_12": 2.05,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_4_12": 2.35,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_4_12": 0.4,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_0": 0.26,
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_0": 0.85,
@@ -1164,19 +1164,19 @@
"ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_7": 1.2,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_7": 0.27,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_8": 0.275,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_8": 1.4,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_8": 1.45,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_8": 0.275,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_9": 0.28,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_9": 1.55,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_9": 1.68,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_9": 0.28,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_10": 0.28,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_10": 1.7,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_10": 1.9,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_10": 0.28,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_11": 0.27,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_11": 1.9,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_11": 2.12,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_11": 0.27,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_5_12": 0.26,
- "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_12": 2.1,
+ "ThrAftMaxCoeff_5_12": 2.3,
"TorqueMaxCoeff_5_12": 0.26,
"ThrustMaxCoeff_6_0": 0.05,They do F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion - #2649 by MaMoran20-psn
That is what they need to do, they go through brackets of ~10k ft. Guess a bracket needs thrust increase dont you think
Simple
2 Likes
You are about to read some very botched math I did while having a fever and slightly drunk. Do not take any of it too seriously.
So I’ve heard that the F-15s have some stupid high Channel Loss so I wanted to test something.
First I found the bench thrust for the 220 engine from an Air Force Museum and compared it to in game, finding that there’s about a 20% CL from what the AFM says compared to the installed thrust in game.
I then did the same for the Flanker and found it to be ~7%. (There are lower numbers, I just like the Flanker and thought it was a good comparison).
So I took the thrust the engines make in game and divided it by the min fuel weight of the F-15C and found it was ~1.12. (8,630 kgf * 2) (force per engine) / (13,590 kg (empty weight) + 1,830 kg (30% fuel).
After this, I took the force of the engine and multiplied it by 1.13 (I didn’t know the exact # to trim it down to 7% from 20%, but I figured adding 13% would be close enough).
This took the thrust from 17,260 kgf to ~19,504.
After this I took the 19504 kgf figure and found the TTW at 30% fuel with said figure, it came out to 1.29.
After this I went back to the original thrust (17,260) and started shaving off weight until the TTW was 1.29, same as the TTW with 7% CL. That weight was 13,690 kg.
After that I subtracted the empty weight of the F-15C, which left me with 100 kg for fuel.
So, I took the internal fuel load (6,100 kg) and found what % Of that was 100 kg. It came out to 1.6%.
After that, I went into Statshark and lowered the F-15C’s fuel % to 1.6%, and now I have a rough estimation of what the F-15C would perform like if Gaijin hadn’t cranked the Channel loss up to 20 (quite literally).
Did I mess up somewhere? Yeah probably. Do I care? No not really.
This was mostly just for fun, I know Gaijin sucks at fixing Flight models, but I wanted to try and see what it would be like if the Eagles had less Cl.
2 Likes
I looked it over again since I wasn’t sure on my 7% cl predictions. (multiplying by 1.13 was dumb).
I took the figure from the AFM website and multiplied it by 0.93, and got a TTW of 1.3. Even on 0% fuel the F-15C can’t reach this TTW, so I can’t plug it into statshark for an approximation since it won’t let me change the base weight.
you can
just input a negative number here
(also your method isnt exactly accurate but still interesting to see)
2 Likes
I completely forgot about that. I thought it was for a specific mass of fuel
I figured as much, I mostly just did it for fun
I think I may have to try this when I’m more levelheaded, since now my graph looks far less extreme.
Maybe I’ll come back to it tomorrow and try to do it “properly” (but I likely won’t, this was just for fun)
2 Likes
what altitude did you use?
I didn’t use any altitude, I was just toying with the thrust and weight.
1 Like
Then it’s 100 meters iirc, this is what statshark uses by default