Issue there is that the Rafale is not a implement of a certain nation.
Stares at TOW-2B being nerfed into the floor god knows how long ago now and nothing has changed on it.
If that was the case the T58 would have gone up by now, however, the T58 has a above average WR and within premium expected SL and RP rates, while having a vastly higher KpD than those around it. It not having a high enough WR and gain rate has allowed it to remain where it is.
KpD has seldom ever been the reason of a vehicle being moved, win rate and resource gain rate however have been formative, and the GE and 18C late both sit well below others at their BR range beyond the 18C late being slightly propped up by some A2G work.
Here are my notes from the major Fox-3 rebalance they did a while back
the PL-12 got less drag (1.75 → 1.6), slightly better fin AoA, better lofting
the MICA-EM got less drag (1.85 → 1.65), slightly better fin AoA, nothing on lofting changes
the Derby/R-Darter got less drag (2.3 → 1.9), better fin AoA, better lofting
the AAM-4 is still gimped afaik, it got worse fin AoA, better lofting, idk if anything else is really a buff/nerf so it’s worth checking out
the R-77 got less drag (1.85 → 1.45), better fin AoA, and better lofting
the AMRAAM got slightly more drag (1.4 → 1.425), less fin AoA, but it got better lofting and slightly better motor performance
For reference, here’s how utterly wrecked the AMRAAM’s fin AOA was:
More drag, less wing area, far worse fin AOA actuation values. The max fin AOA got slightly better, but that doesnt make up for how bad the multipliers became. The motor and lofting changes were negligible.
Also of course we cannot use datamined values to bug report things. So there’s no way we can say the AMRAAM’s fin AOA actuation is wrong in game. Although I have seen live fire test data shown in bug reports, which have been ignored like you said.
At the same time there’s literally zero chance Gaijin has sources on the AMRAAM’s fin actuation speed or its servos being worse than its contemporaries. That’s wildly classified of course, and very clearly a balancing decision.
I can understand why the AMRAAM pulls worse than the AAM-4 and PL-12, for example (similar design profiles). But they should at least be in the same ballpark as they were before the AMRAAM’s nerf. Now the AMRAAM is just the absolute, bar none, worst Fox-3 at close range.
Yep that top one is the report I was referencing. Sadly I think Gaijin prefers the nerfed state of the AMRAAM because of the low tier vehicles that have them (eg. F-4F ICE, AV-8B+). If they ungimped the AMRAAM, those would suddenly need to go up in BR, which would complicate things even more.
Probably. I am covinced that Gaijin “ignores” reports specifically so they can have plausible deniability when it comes to balance. There are just too many obvious buffs for various vehicle that just dont get implemented. Like Phimat pods for the F3 for example
Hopefully, although I don’t think the J-10C needs to move up with the AESA EFTs and Rafales. It also seems quite sad in it’s current state. However that is off topic.
I thought you wanted 14 missiles on an airframe better than the Su-30SM’s.
No?
Dang…
I’ll be flying F-18D and C more often tho.
Win rates don’t matter to Gaijin.
It’s the least interesting data from vehicles due to how there are 31 other factors at play that isn’t the vehicle or player.
The F-18E doesn’t have its flight model or engines configured currently.
Even with that, it’s still out-accelerating and out-maneuvering Su-30s handily.
So when these issues are fixed, I’ll get data for you.
if we include the amber rack + mrml pylons on the F15C irl , compared to a render/cgi its much more real then it would mean the F15EX will end up with 20 amraams totally lmao.
genaral LEE 2000s F15C FM buff is canceled this plane is dead
Spoiler
We have closely reviewed the footage provided to verify the turn rate at low speeds. Upon analysis, we found that the values listed in your report differ significantly from the actual performance demonstrated in your test videos.
For example, based on the timestamps in your video:
10,000 ft (Mach 0.35): A 360-degree turn takes 30 seconds.
The turn rates calculated directly from the flight time are closer to the manual’s reference values than the figures provided in the written report. The discrepancy suggests that the third-party tool (WTRTI) used for measurement may display incorrect turn rate calculations during low-speed maneuvers. We generally advise against relying on third-party tools for bug reports as they can introduce measurement errors.
Additionally, we noticed the tests were performed with deceleration. For accurate results, turn rate tests require maintaining a constant speed for at least 1-2 turns near the target Mach number.
According to our internal tests (F-15C, 37,000lb, clean configuration), the results are as follows:
These values are very close to what is observed in your video footage. While some values (e.g., at Mach 0.3) are slightly lower than the manual, the difference is not critical, and the F-15C’s performance is generally well-aligned with reference data. We will continue to refine the flight model as new features are developed, but currently, the aircraft performs within acceptable parameters.
