Morvran, just cause you admit you attacked me because you were wrong doesn’t mean others were wrong.
I of course attacked no one here.
Also Turbo Union hasn’t released thrust curves.
1 Like
Yea lmao
I guess that what’s different about me is that when I’m wrong I ether put my hand up or stay quiet for abit
He is now playing victim lol
I’m confused, aren’t intake ramps designed to account for aerodynamic changes as speed/drag changes?
Thrust isn’t static, I’m sure you realize that. So you’re certain of the bug? Even if you have a bug report, I wouldn’t count on them fixing it quickly, lol. Especially since a full fidelity sim of the engines and intakes would take forever. They don’t even have ERA or kinetic penetrators modelled yet.
2 Likes
Exactly my point.
Thrust changes based on the air intake speed, and if it deviates from ideal then thrust decreases.
It really depends on how the game is going to evolve. If EC maps ever get updated strategic bombers would make a lot of sense, as the current objectives are really lacking proper target planes.
Also, I feel like there are a couple real moneymakers in the strategic bomber category, judging by how iconic a lot of them are.
The US, USSR and UK have enough similarly specced strategic bombers to allow for a couple of premiums, I bet a premium FB-111A, Vulcan or Tu-22M would sell like hotcakes with how many people buy high rank premiums only to bomb in them.
3 Likes
Its the degree of thrust drop and when it occurs. Its being figured out as like for like data is tricky to come by. But some aircraft seem more effected than others. For example, at certain speeds the F4-S has more thrust than the FGR2 at the same speed. Which… doesnt overly make sense.
By all accounts the Tornados should be getting more thrust and thus a slightly higher top speed, or at least more consistant acceleration than they are currently.
Its under investigation by people who understand the aerodynamics better htan I can. But the leading theory is some random hold out old code and yeah probably will take an age to get fixed.
(interestingly, it does not affect soviet aircraft, but most other nations do seem to be equally affected, im not going to comment on that further, but it is food for thought)
I mean, bug or not, it does feel weird that the Tornados can’t really outrun anything newer than the MiG-21
This effect is on turbofan engines, including Yak-141, Mirage 2000, etc.
1 Like
Its why the guy started investigating it. A lot of RAF pilots in interview state speeds and degrees of acceleration that the data sheets dont quite agree with. Which is always a grey area. but yeah, The Tornados probably are misisng some thrust. and actually, maybe most aircraft are missing at least a little.
Fgr2 has different engines to the f4s right so maybe thats why for that
2 Likes
Right
I recall reading about the Phantom thing somewhere
On deck FG.1/FGR.2 had higher thrust but at higher altitudes J79 was superior, right?
FGR2 has the Rolls-Royce Spey engines that produce a lot more thrust. This does already result in a higher top speed.
But there is an unexpected drop in thrust for the FGR2 at 800-900mph
in the F4S the thrust actually increases at 800-900mph
I dont know im afraid
Sounds about right, wasn’t just the different engines, but also the design changes to accomodate for the Spey engines tho
Snippet from the Wikipedia page about the Phantom in UK service
Spoiler
Performance estimates of the British Phantom compared to its American equivalent indicated that the former had a 30% shorter take-off distance, 20% faster climb to altitude, higher top speed, and longer range.[100] The Spey was more efficient at lower altitudes, and had better acceleration at low speed, giving British Phantoms better range and acceleration, which was shown during the deployment of 892 NAS to the Mediterranean aboard USS Saratoga in 1969, when the F-4K was repeatedly quicker off the deck than the F-4J used by the Americans.[102] It was less efficient at higher altitudes, the British Phantoms lacking speed compared to J79-powered versions owing to the increased drag of the re-designed fuselage.[18][100] This discrepancy became apparent when the F-4J was obtained by the UK in 1984; it was regarded as being the best of the three variants to serve in the RAF.[88]
@Smin1080p sorry too keep asking about this, but me and a bunch of other fans of the Chinese tech tree are just really curious if there is a possibility that China might get something for Aviation this update or even this year. If you were able to make a comment that would be much appreciated!
3 Likes
@Smin1080p is the Mig-29G and M109G everything for Germany this patch or is there maybe more in the works?
I’d assume they are the same plane basically, but I’d want to make sure the internal geometry of the intakes are the same, as are the engines. A change for either would explain the difference.
I’m not technically proficient enough to be able to read the diagrams and speak authoritatively, but I know the Su-27 has multiple variable ramps for it’s AL-31F engines, and I’d assume Mikoyan repeated the practice from the MiG-25/33 to the 29.
Why there’s a discrepancy is beyond me, but to chalk it up to conspiracy, which I think is the shadow looming over many of these discussions, is really divisive.
My money is on ramps not being modelled. Across the board. Not on some, and not on others. I think the problem is probably similar to ERA. Instead of modelling a complex process, it’s easier to make everything formulaic. I bet there’s a coefficiency for speed at a certain altitude, temp, and humidity that just overrides speed. Instead of a simulated airflow and the physical extension/retraction of ramps to give you a more realistic experience.
Same thing happens with ERA like I said. They use a formula to allow for things like tandem-warheads to penetrate at an extra efficiency. So tandem warheads have Pen=(1.6) (160% penetration) or something like that.
lastly, don’t forget, the RD-33’s still have an afterburner issue that hasn’t been addressed btw.
The leading theory is either ramps not modeled or some old bit of code that is now causing issues with the speeds we now have in game.
FGR2 and F4S do have different engines, but the same intakes. So in theory they should both exhibit the same engine drop off if it is due to the air intakes and less so the engines. Which is just interesting.
Whether or not the migs have a reason for not experiencing the same problem is very tricky to know. But it is none-the-less, curious. All Migs seems to be unaffected, whilst everything else seems to be randomly affected.
You might be right in thinking CR2 hasn’t been artificially nerfed on purpose, but it’s absolutely not representative of Challenger 2 in any way, shape or form.
The short list of issues is:
- Transmission and as a result, neutral steer currently is worse than CR1
- The Gunner and Commander sit too high, exposing themselves above the strikeface of the turret. This shouldn’t even be possible to be that high.
- The mantlet should have higher KE and CE protection than just being hollow
- The ammunition racks to the left of the driver, and behind the drivers seat have no evidence to justify their existence beyond CR1 having them. They are not physically possible in CR2s driver compartment.
- The ammunition should be stored behind the driver to his left and right shoulder in large metal bins.
- The UFP is too weak currently and needs far higher CE and KE resistence
- The LFP is too weak currently and needs far higher CE and KE resistence
- On Challenger 2F and TES, the turret NERA bricks should have higher protection
- On Challenger 2F and TES, the LFP addon armor should be FAR more protective
- On Challenger TES, The side skirt ERA should be ASPRO-HMT with 84mm KE and 1800 approx CE
- On Challenger 2F, the ERA/NERA side skirts should have far higher protection than 400/30, and should be closer to 650/60
- On Challenger 2, the ammunition charges should be extremely hard to cookoff, as they’re stored in protective lined bins for crew survival
- Challenger 2 should be faster to accelerate
- Challenger 2 should keep its momentum in turns
- Challenger 2’s cheek armor should be practically impenetrable, much like Abrams
Whether or not its intentional, CR2 is mismodelled and it suffers greatly as a result. The tank in game is a terrible representation of one of, if not the most survivable tanks ever produced.
6 Likes
All the issues you listed existed since release, which means they’re not nerfs.
Regenerative steering & superior torque converter simulation are necessary, however neither exist in War Thunder currently.
I’m glad you & Morvran agree with me that CR2 is in a non-ideal state.