Reading through it, it seems you are correct for the most part. Could you explain it in terms of the game how it would affect the gripen? Would it simply reduce the amount of thrust it achieves at speeds above Mach 0.6 and therefore reduce its acceleration. If so, and if you are correct in the reduction of thrust, I don’t see this as a nerf tbh. I have enough trouble losing speed in it, although not being able to run away from fights will make it less controlling. From what I understood it may have too much thrust, but not by a lot?
It’s got nearly 2000kgf too much thrust at high speed.
They should also reduce the drag coefficient, but zoom climb ability will be harmed more so than anything else.
Once they model the instability you’ll need to be more careful about pulling too hard at slow to medium speeds.
I read somewhere It should do mach 0.5-1.15 in 30 seconds, on min fuel and no payload it currently does so in 32-36 seconds depending on height (I tried In test-flight, I may have missed something so take it with grain of salt)
It would require a pretty massive amount of drag-decrease to be able to pull this off if it’s going to lose all that thrust.
Maybe it’s just gaijins way of modelling that accelleration, without giving it too much sustained?
Also merry Christmas my dude
Merry Christmas
No, we were able to dig up enough sufficient sources to show the thrust is incorrect and they seem inclined to change it. Along with this should be changes to drag and other aspects of the FM. We are slowly piecing together the correct FM from available data points and extrapolating the rest.
Precisely!
We don’t know the conditions that it should do 0.5 - 1.1 mach but it is stated ~30 seconds. It could be sea level, high altitude, min or full fuel… we do not know. It does state with an air-to-air missile loadout. Does not tell us what loadout that is. For now, I’ve ommitted it from the thrust report cuz it’s a separate problem.
Once we have more data on acceleration we can use it to assess the performance. What we know is that the armed and loaded top speed should be only around 1.4 mach at higher altitudes due to drag and the engines’ thrust dropping off after 0.8 mach or so. In-game the top speed being limited by ordnance is not modeled so that report was closed.
I think we are getting much closer to a realistic FM for the Gripen and hopefully it isn’t too much of a nerf, or maybe it will be a buff in some areas. Seems low speed thrust to weight may even increase based on the available data.
2 Likes
Any cool sources you’ve found? I’ve been looking at Swedish ones but have not found much more than what we already knew, I did order a book about the Gripen though.
Well, you know what I think about how you used some of your sources, but if Gaijin is willing to accept them, then I see no issue with them accepting that one, Also, I can currently only hit like mach 1.45-1.5 at medium-high altitudes, seems drag limited. idk if it’s accurate but it seems low?
Well as long as it’s not modelled for other similar jets, It should definitely not be modelled exclusively for Gripen
lol I think Gripen fans wouldn’t be too mad if you also got it one or two buffs, so it’s not just nerf after nerf
Just be careful with those approximations, there are more variables in aerodynamics than we understand most likely
Was it the Saab book? If so, what version? I think there are 5. Been trying to get one.
It is kinda low for the amount of thrust it has currently. Drag is too high.
I agree.
It is up to the devs to extrapolate the data. I am only posting obvious incongruencies with available data. Like it having +2000kgf thrust over what was possible for even newer models of the same engine.
It’s the fifth version of this book, I placed an order but have not gotten a confirmation yet, I believe the seller has to confirm it or something. (It’s holidays so I’m guessing they’re kinda busy). Also if it’s not the book your looking for, let me know which one it is and I can try to find it here in Sweden
Yeah, it just reminded me of something InterFleet said once regarding incorrect channel loss, something about how their main focus is to match the flight model accurately, even if it means channel loss isn’t 100% accurate - maybe it’s a similar situation where they can’t model the low drag for it’s correct acceleration/top speed without making it a sustained-rate monster so they compromised by adding some extra thrust at those speeds? Idk just a thought.
1 Like
That is exactly the book I am looking for. Please let us know what good information you can find in it.
If there is information available for the engine thrust by speed and altitude (and now there is)… then channel losses are irrelevant and they can model the thrust properly. From there, they only adjust the drag and other values since there are hard data for thrust which solves one piece of the puzzle.
I’ll let you know once the book arrives, still no confirmation but I’m hoping I get it
Yeah, I just try to remind myself this is all code, not an actual aerodynamic simulator - so maybe their drag/thrust metrics are fundamentally flawed, so they have to compensate somewhere to get stuff accurate to real life, But I get your point
1 Like
US having a 100% win rate has only little to do with agility.
My US line is A-6, A-7E, A-10, A-10 Late, F-14B (pod/GBU), F-16A (x6 Mav, x12 500lb), F-16C (pod, x6 Mav D, x12 500lb or x2 GBU). That’s the multirole, not the strictly fighter aircraft on the line.
Let’s be honest, that win rate is entirely because no one else brings the quality or quantity of standoff ground attack weaponry to the battle at this time like the US line.
No reason Russia and Germany cannot rock Kh-25 TV or IR missiles to similar effect but that’s the Snail’s decision.
100 percent win rates in sim were purely due to how much better the F-16s are in sim compared to the MiG-29 variants.
Playing on the Russia side last patch was just lopsided matches in favor of US players. It was the absolute most hand-holding experience possible for US mains.
Not too mention the fact that SIM can be won outside A2A. I’ve seen a match where the soviets were slapping in A2A, but a few in ground pounders just carried the match. Win rates are a really bad way to compare aircraft in sim
The fastest and easiest way to win a sim match is to kill other players until they quit. Killing other players until nobody wants to stick in the lobby is an automatic win for the team that has players.
This was incredibly easy to do since the F-16C patch when the flight models of the MiG-29s were heavily nerfed due to changes in their Oswald Efficiency. At the same time the F-16 flight models were buffed by removing the pseudo g-limiter from them.
Even in the cases where 1 or 2 players remain on the enemy team…if they are facing 5 or 6 other people…which was a very common situation…the team with the additional people can switch to playing objectives and will win on tickets.
As I said earlier…F-16C patch was one of the biggest hand holding experiences for US players in Sim to ever hit the game.
The initial Gripen FM took everything about the F-16C and just made it much better; even the F-16A Block 10s couldn’t even compete against it.
just in general they are bad
Not to Mention the f15 is literally the best plane in the game when flown correctly, but since 99% of american mains are braindead, if something can’t out turn everything its “trash”. So everything else gets nerfed into having comparable maneuverability, but oh wait , now that you lost your maneuverability advantage the f16 and f15 can energy trap you into oblivion and STILL out turn a delta wing at low speed. TLDR: It’s pretty much the same as p51 pilots turn fighting with a japan zero, complaining that they can’t win, them nerfing the zero where it turns like a p51, then the p51 can boom and zoom, and turn fight.
2 Likes
SU-27, F-15, J-11, M4K, and the Gripen were all adjusted based on real world performance charts. Nothing was done because of ‘american mains who complain’
2 Likes
You actually don’t know what you are talking about. The f16’s couldn’t turn fight it, but they had no problems rate fighting it.
It’s pretty much the same as p51 pilots turn fighting with a japan zero, complaining that they can’t win, them nerfing the zero where it turns like a p51, then the p51 can boom and zoom, and turn fight.
The problem is the f16 was designed to energy fight, while the gripen was designed for low speed maneuverability.
Also the f16 c entered service in 1984 while the gripen entered service in 1996. God forbid that America doesn’t have the best jet in the game at all times (america has had the best jets for 2 years straight)
Also f15 is the best plane in the game, but its not a turn fighter so everyone says it’s bad.
TLDR: skill issue
Its not though. The aoa for the gripen was HEAVILY nerfed compared to real life, while the f16 is very much overperforming at low speed maneuverability.
I have the f16, and it is quite literally a free win against anything in the game right now. It was impossible to play sim before this patch because nothing could compete. The f16 and f15 can hands down beat anything in a rate fight (which is realistic). The problems happen when you can also beat anything in a turn fight, which leads to terrible balance.
You can claim that all you want, but unless you’ve got conflicting documentation that overrides the performance charts recently submitted in bug reports… all it is is cope.
Everyone knows and no one argues that the F-16 is over performing in low speed flight regimes at least. It actually swung a lot of people to believe the MIg-29 is underperforming despite it also being largely accurate minus the instructor limitations.
None of that however is evidence or lends credence to the notion that gaijin caters to individual nations because they complain.
An F15 should lose to some plane in a rate fight, Mig-29, F-14, etc the way it rates in game is kinda insane…