Then just calculate the turn rate yourself from the speed and G load from localhost itself and check how accurate StatShark is again. As I said, WTRTI is within 0.1deg/s error.
This is a whole different issue. They don’t accept data-mined values either, so you can’t argue with their decisions.
I did a very similar test myself like that video, but with 2 turns to do an average to be more precise; the error with the su-27SM was around 0.2deg/s
Its not but please just ignore the video I posted.
Your own video showcases a variance of greater than a full degree of AOA, lmao. Also love that you are still using a modified test drive as well without G loc which is also not indicative of actual flight performance.
Once again, WTRTI is not a valid source on high AOA vehicles and remains as such.
Have you ever heard of averages? Doesn’t really matter when I am averaging the 2 turns considering I am maintaining similar speed and altitude in the turn.
You do you. But can’t argue with correct math taken directly from locahost values which is more accurate than these video tests anyway, you would need decent video editing software and good timeframe references to do a decent test like that.
Statshark overall just gives higher error/offset values than WTRTI when verifying with localhost, so it’s a clear argument.
Have you ever heard of outliers skewing a mean?
Cool, your values still have very noticeable spikes of flawed data.
WTRTI’s baseline formula is flawed, the math is not correct to begin with lmao.
One however has a functioning formula and the other does not.
Which outliers bro. The speed remained mostly the same, and the altitude too after the 2 turns. Same with altitude, I compensated in the 2nd turn. If I turned a lil too much I eased off after etc, very small inputs.
What matters is the time it took to do the 2 turns while maintaining roughly similar conditions. The 2 turns were mostly smooth, not perfect, which is why I do a turn time average from multiple turns, at 720 degrees instead of just 360.
I could do more turns, like 10+, but the results would not be much different
I am not talking about WTRTI dude, I am talking about taking your own turn rate from calculating it from localhost speed and G load values.
And those results are VERY close to what WTRTI gives me in every circumstance I tested, at least on my system. While statshark has huge errors, mostly at high AoA/slow speed turn rates.
Some values are completely outlandish in statshark.
You brought up the F-106 before, as an example, just go look at the F-106 turn graphs and try to replicate a 19deg/s sustained turn rate in the actual game like it indicates it can.
Locahost gives around 16deg/s maximum sustained turn rate at its optimal speed, and around 14 something at the speeds statshark says it can do 19 somehow lol
Yeah, because somehow WTRTI gives more correct values than StatShark with its non functional formula.
You’re beating a dead horse
Neither are perfectly accurate, however WTRTI is definitely a lot more accurate as its actually using localhost data recorded from the actual game, versus statshark just doing an approximation that’s really not too accurate. Main issue with statshark’s FM’s are that they dont actually account for the fact that flight performance is hysteretic, so some AoA response characteristics don’t come across properly.
Also, in the current version, WTRTI’s inaccuracies only really come from vertical scenarios, in a flat scenario its math is accurate barring some rounding.
I honestly don’t understand how low-speed performance really matters on upping the BR on this thing or not.
The F-4E ICE is better than it by a long shot because it has an amazing suite.
The closest I can compare it to, is the Ja-37DI. The only difference being better low speed flight performance on the XL’s end.
But you’re splitting hairs on that. By the time you get low speed. You’re gonna have some dude shove a missile in you.
People forget how useful HCS is.
I think this jet would be better placed at 13.3 with 6 AIM-120 like the ADF/MLU.
Regardless of the BR placement, the FM is still nonsensical
even with 4 amraams it would be fine at 13.3 after the missile buffs since the f16xl has a good fm to go in and out of the notch for longer ranges
Ignore the disgusting instantaneous turn ig
Yeah, although I suspect the missiles to be nerfed across the board eventually because most of them except the derby and probably the AAM-4 are overperforming
i dont think that will happen anytume soon
since the fox-3s (besides the derby) were “reworked”
and the gaijin twitter account announced that the derby will also recive a rework
Worst plane I played in 13.0. Mid radar, Mid flight preformance, Mid lodaut. Overall MID.
cope it is the strongest aircraft at 13.0 and literally bullying everything at its BR
Literally the best 13.0 jet by wide margins except for MAYBE the flankers coming close but people can’t notch so they always think everything sucks
I legitimately cannot see how a good FM with absolutely middling weapons puts this thing on-par with the F-4F ICE or the new Greek Phantom, or the Su-30mkk
The Phantoms’s lack of maneuverability is made up for the 4 extra AIM-9Ms and they both carry a better ground payload, and 30 extra counter measures conpared to the XL
I have more matches getting clobbered by missiles than actually getting into turning fights.
The F-16XL is literally just a US version of the JA-37DI. If it gets moved to 13.3, it needs an armament buff as AIM-9Ls are simply not doing the trick, and have it carry 6 AMRAAMS instead
You have the F-16A at 12.3 and the F-4EJ at 12.3, both share the same BR. The F-16A has a weak loadout, but far superior FM. So it kinda balances it. (not perfectly because I think the F-16A is kinda weak at 12.3, but just for the sake of the example).
This is a undertiered premium that should belong at 13.7, most agree with this.
I don’t like to evaluate BR’s against vehicles that have preferable treatment, unbalanced stuff should not make the standard for each BR.
I get that. But SARH slingers are the norm at that BR, and you need to sustain track for those missiles to work. It’s doing the J-7E thing with the F-16A.
We’re dealing wth ARH missiles where someone can dump a missile on you and quickly get out of there while you have to defend.
You’re also facing IRCCM missiles so you can’t just pop a flare and watch it fly by.
Honestly, if Gaijin wanted to. They could just change it to the F-16XL-2, give the better engine, HMS it had and give it some of the armament the F-15E carried and shove it up at 13.7.
It’s a prototype, Gaijin likes playing fantasy with prototypes. Look at the Yak-141
But if they’re gonna move it to 13.3 it’s gonna need an armament buff as “It has a good flight model” would’ve cut it down at 12.0 not 13.0
and that is why the F-16XL has an RWR and CMs
Hey I respect your opinion, to me F16XL is just not it, MID at the best theres much better planes at 13.0.