i think u should quit yappin about datamined values if you have no clue how they are used and what the calculation the game uses to determine the thrust is 👍👍👍👍👍👍
1 Like
Can’t see him, don’t waste my time with him.
Ok, then prove what the numbers are. If they aren’t thrust values (like they are labeled) then what are they?
How about you don’t ignore the rest of that entire “ThrustMax” section which has:
- Velocity variables
- Thrust coefficient variables
- Thrust afterburner coefficient variables
And those variables directly state which altitude and velocity they are related to.
You are cherry picking to the extreme.
The things you notice when you have EYES.
2 Likes
To put it bluntly: because I have actually put in the effort to learn how to read and program flight model files instead of just making assumptions.
To summarise very quickly:
- The thrustMax section first defines a bunch of altitude and speed variables (this is the bit you instantly assumed was thrust).
- thrustMax0 is the base thrust
- All the thrustMaxCoeff stuff are multipliers applied to the base thrust at the speeds and altitudes defined at the start of the section.
- There are a bunch more multipliers applied to thrustMax0 depending on throttle and afterburner settings.
The highest coefficient number in the game is for the F15C is 4.4. 4.4 x 6070 = 26,708. The graph presented above says 28,500. The numbers are not the same. So the graph or the logic is wrong.
Edit: did this vs the graph above for the F15A as well. Maximum coefficient is 3.5. 3.5 x 6140 is 21,490. Graph above says 27,900. Again, the numbers don’t line up.
There’s a pre-existing afterburner boost. The afterburner coefficient multiplies that boost, which then multiplies the max thrust value.
These values alone are not everything.
No you’re just picking out random numbers you don’t understand again. It is getting really, really, boring now.
You conveniently ignored this part of my comment:
If I say that what makes you think that you can just ignore those other multpliers? There is a reason I said it.
Also you can’t just multiply thrustMax0 by the afterburner coefficient you need to multiply it by the non-afterburner coefficient, and the various throttle and afterburner multpliers elsewhere in the file.
Nope, still doesn’t work. Still falls short of the graph. If you think it does, show us the numbers that equal out to 27,900 like in the graph for the F15A.
You have the numbers for the graph to equal exactly 27,900. I would like to see how you came to that.
It does underperform, but gaijin doesnt care
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HGnvdjS5pu9k
3 Likes
In-game the F-15A produces almost 28.000Ib.
Until you know how engines work, you should stop making a fool of yourself.
The jet engine needs ram air to increase pressure and thrust.
You go by the stat card in war thunder which shows static thrust…
Please try to educate yourself, it will help you find actual bugs.
1 Like
It has been proven to be underperforming. The aircraft is not able to hit the time marks at 10,000feet. If you think you can do it, then show us a video. I have already provided the data charts. If you can’t do it then I expect not to see a video or response until you can.
The only thing that is proven is that you have issues with reading comprehension…
The climb profile and climb data that you are suggesting that the F-15C/F-15A should match is the data from the F-15 Streak Eagle demonstrator. The F-15 Streak Eagle is heavily modified by removing as much weight from the plane as possible. It also carried just barely enough fuel to set climb records and that was it. It never carried weaponry and didn’t even have a radar. It also had a special arrestor device so that it could be held stationary on the runway while the engines completely spooled up so that it could start it’s takeoff role at maximum power.
3 Likes
War Thunder Standards. Test Beds are all you need. Case in point, the flight performance of the Yak-141 is based off an aircraft that didn’t have guns, radar, or pylons. It was a 1 off demonstration engine.
Stop trying to hold NATO to a standard you don’t hold Soviets to.
Secondly. I said 10,000ft. The Aircraft in game, when outfitted identical does not perform properly and the acceleration is half what it should be. Gaijin HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS.
Stop attacking forum members, who post with documentation facts. The aircraft cannot hit the time marks in its current condition at 10,000ft with the appropriate payload from the flight manual. Its wrong.
They… Have… Acknowledged… This… Meaning you are wrong.
Where is your acceleration documentation for the F-15A or the F-15C?
You don’t post documented facts. You post documentation for an entirely different airplane and then claim that one that is heavier should meet the same performance metrics.
I have already posted engine thrust graphs for both planes. Both planes have more thrust than you insist that they should.
The Devs acknowledged the engines are underperforming. So I was right.
Where?
Go back and read this thread.
They put it as not a bug 3 months ago???
1 Like
The only thing they acknowledged is that they do not care about engine performance at 51,000 feet. This is something that effects all engines in the game and not just the F-15C.
This is the chart that you posted for 10,000 feet.
In-game F-15C will accelerate from Mach .4 to Mach to Mach 1.2 in 60 seconds. This is pretty much directly in-line with the chart that you posted for 10,000ft acceleration AGL and consistent with the test map having hotter than standard atmospheric conditions.
If the plane was missing 50% of its thrust it would reach Mach .83 in 60 seconds.
1 Like