I’m honestly surprised that they didn’t lock the comments on that report.
But at this point it seems like they just don’t care.
Is my reply valid?
Yeah it seems perfectly fine. Honestly if that won’t atleast get the report passed on then pretty much nothing will. It’s clear evidence of the issue and I don’t see how it can’t be anything else
Yeah he didn’t even test it correctly, didn’t correctly reference any of my provided sources, didn’t use accurate weights, and didn’t even use correct thrust settings.
The bigger question is if anyone is going to see it. I don’t think they have any notifications there (or there are so many that important comments get drowned). Also, this is not the dev coming themselves and responding, it is them responding (somewhere internally) and a tech mod pasting that message in the bug report, so a tech mod would have to deliver your response.
I contacted the same Tech mod again as their reply was complete garbage to be quite frank they didn’t take any notice of it.
Happens often, sadly.
Its missing so much performance its clear bias against the harrier here.
2 Likes
I don’t understand why you’re referring to a nato classified source. They can’t use it.
I didn’t know it was classified lmao it can be found online with a google search.
I pray that it at least one day can get its warranted buffs so it can hold its own in air combat like IRL, rather than being the glorified missile bus/van it effectively is at the moment without extreme luck & skill…
thank you for your work, if only to relieve me that someone out there cares also about it and that it should be better than it currently is lol
I don’t know if the Dev involved with this reply is dumb or just doesn’t like the Harrier and has some preemptive bias. They can’t deny what’s been shared its all there. They didn’t even test it correctly, using 50% fuel vs 85% and 100 percent thrust vs 80.
The preemptive bias here isn’t an inherent bias against a certain vehicle purely on the basis of it being said vehicle, but rather prejudgment (preexisting assumptions) and lack of depth during investigation. It often feels that, unless you somehow pique the interest of a dev, your report will be given a quick read and then any judgement will be made solely on their existing subject matter knowledge and impression of what you were getting at.
Sometimes, you write a quick report on a big bug, it gets passed quickly and within a couple of weeks they fix the reported bug, alongside some other related issue that you didn’t even know about.
And sometimes, you report something, write out the details and highlight important points that can easily be missed/misinterpreted, wait half a year, only to then see that whoever read the report seemingly glossed over everything you wrote, fell into the trap you tried so hard keep them away from, and declared that everything is fine and requires no changes. As a cherry on top, the report is marked as not a bug (or fixed with no actual fix), the replies are immediately closed off, and when you ask mods to reopen it and/or to deliver your message clarifying the issue to the devs, you get told the tried and true “file a new report”.
The more I write reports, the more I feel like a man writing an email with a request to someone who doesn’t even want to read it.
Don’t even know know where I was going with this, but I feel you.
4 Likes
Yes I understand that as well. I’m trying to find a way to explain it simply. 1 Paper states 13 a second at 85% fuel 7940KG
second says 14 at 7400Kg
the last says 15 at 7030Kg
perhaps, but this would only be a fair comparison if you too made THE game, not just A game that effectively monopolises this genre of semi-casual combat vehicle simulation (or in this case molecular structures…) and wrote in several advertisements and other report responses that you pride yourself on your focus on realism -
you are naturally going to attract an audience/buyers you have to be justifiably beholden/accountable to in your detailing
similarly, Gaijin isn’t exactly one guy with personal interest and boredoms in mind, more like employees paid to at least put in effort…
3 Likes
Flight test results using 85% fuel and a whole 98% throttle giving a static sea level thrust of 19,500LBS based off of a engine brochure that states normal wet thrust uninstalled is 19,500. (the installed engine makes less power, the normal lift setting used in flight was dry not wet so 2x over is making less thrust then 19,500)
I could only sustain around 4.85G at .7 Mach and this would give you 11-11,5 degrees a second sustained when compared to a document that clearly states 13 for this exact same configuration (albeit with less actual thrust)
1 Like
Everything I have calculated this far.
3 Likes
so uh, what’s the plan now? lodge another report and/or DM a techmod again? or just sit and wait?
2 Likes
Sit and wait lol. If the devs think there math is correct then that’s that, nothing I can do.
The devs stated the NASA tests was instantaneous turn performance. However this isn’t 100% accurate as the tests where done in conditions under buffet meaning perfect airflow over the wing with no separation (the wing is working at 100% efficiency for its design).
For an aircraft weight of 16,400 lbs the wing can actually achieve over 7.8 G at .8 Mach as used for 6g on the nasa test.
14 d/s at 6 g with near perfect wing conditions would not lead to rapid loss of speed.
19 d/s at 8 g or so is possible but will lead to rapid loss of speed.
5 Likes