His testing matters because it is part of his argument on the bug reports. Had he conducted his tests using better methodology and not deliberately hiding aspects of it, this wouldn’t be an issue. But instead he decided to not do that and then brag about “Destroying flight models” and about how he concealed his poor methodology.
I can tell you don’t bug report flight models, it is very hard to get the testing right. Even when it comes to bug reporting missiles for me which are a bit easier, my overall testing does not line up with what the developers have tested and relayed back to me.
It is difficult to properly test the sustained turn rates without all of the tools that rhe developers have available to them.
RideR2 is a respectable bug-reporter and who I consider to be one of the most knowledgeable dataminers on flight models. It is best that you don’t speak on his methodology when you cannot replicate what he has done.
4 Likes
Gunna quote Hanlon’s Razor
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by neglect/Ignorance/mistake/etc (has a few versions)
In essence. You see the bug reporter as malicously faking his tests. But do you have evidence of that? Did he just make a mistake? Did he just use the wrong methodology? Did he miss read his own documents?
Its impossible to know without him here defending himself.
What matters is the original data. Which got passed and is affecting a change. In this case, a nerf. That testing rarely actually influences a bug report getting passed, though a methodology to replicate a bug or issue is usually needed
2 Likes
Yeah, his testing still supports his general claim of the aircraft overperforming. Even if his results are somewhat off, they’re still accurate in his claim of whether or not something is wrong. Getting fixated on the small details is just not it, especially when you have to work with what you got.
2 Likes
His expertise on flight model bug reports does not exempt him from criticism. In fact, it only puts them under increased scrutiny. Regardless of your personal feelings for them, RideR2 explained that his tests explicitly did not match the IRL charts which adds a level of inaccuracy, even if flaps perform wrong that could be adjusted for if he had done the testing properly. Flaps also reduce performance in a sustained turn so he’s already made a false conclusion that it should perform better with flaps than without. Therefore, his tests are fundamentally flawed and incorrect. It’s bizarre you continue to defend someone who so clearly got it wrong.
1 Like
Criticism from people who weren’t aware that bug reports could contain hidden sources are completely worthless.
If you have a problem with the inaccuracies in his reports, ask developers to release better tools of measurements.
None of this is any of RideR2’s fault.
3 Likes
Odd that you continue to move the goalposts and ignore the simple fact that if RideR2 wanted things as realistic as possible he would have done the tests accurately and not lied about the flap angles. So yes, he is at fault.
Some level of inaccuracies is expected when trying to test flight models. It happens to everyone, even technical moderators. His tests is fine.
You have been corrected multiple times now that I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this discussion when you insist on being wrong.
Yes, that one mistake is on me, later a Tech Mod pointed out that there’s info in the manual which might be the turn rate without flaps and that page was forwarded to devs as well, but even then it is overperforming by 0.5-1G depending on the speed.
6 Likes
Your “corrections” are not even actual corrections. They practically admit on the F8 report that their tests reflect what they feel are accurate rather than accurate testing conditions. Balancing flight models are good but flight models shouldn’t be changed based on the basis of “Well I don’t think the game is right”.
1 Like
They don’t balance flight models, they correct them or make it accurate. Your perspective is extremely limited, there’s not much to be gained from this conversation anymore.
1 Like
Not an argument. Balancing is a synonym of correcting. I accept your concession. Get better role models. Thanks!
I do find it rather amusing that the same people who are celebrating the MiG-21/23s FM being bug reported and possibly fixed.
are also the ones kicking and screaming over the thought of it possibly being done to other planes that are over-performing as well.
really odd how that works isn’t it…
8 Likes
Yeah many people were celebrating the nerfs of “Russian bias” until RideR2 moved on over to Western aircrafts, then a campaign has started to discredit him in any way. (Saying this as a NATO main).
Interestingly, misinformation has gone over on the Warthunder subreddit about the potential correction of Draken’s flight model, and people aren’t too happy.
1 Like
It has more to do with the fact that people are now realizing that some of these reports are of dubious quality. All you have to do is look at the F-8E report to see this. His first excuse is an assumption/feeling that flaps are incorrectly modeled, and him thinking that the sustained turn rate with flaps down or up in real life doesn’t change much. You can check datamines, he is wrong. Maximum flap angle is 30° on the F-8E. Combat flaps are equal to 0.2× of the maximum flap angle. That is 6°. The flaps do not extend too much, they almost extend perfectly on point. He could’ve absolutely tested with flaps down. His second excuse is him trying to connect maximum G to say that what he tested applies. It doesn’t, they are two distinct scenarios. And the fact that the manual doesn’t state sustained turn without flaps. Meaningless, and if anything shows that this source cannot be used for this scenario. Third excuse is about instantaneous turn rate. Which is separate from sustained. Meaningless. Fourth excuse is a comparison made between two planes, with no number data. Cool, meaningless. He can say things, it doesn’t mean they are true. Flaps down making the result worse is the point. Almost all flaps end up decreasing sustained turn rate, so having flaps up and getting better rate than what a source states with flaps slightly up is entirely expected.
2 Likes
Datamine information isn’t accepted in reports.
Yes correct. But in this case I’m using it to show that one of the assumptions made in the bug report is fundamentally incorrect based off of easily findable information.
He literally admitted he made a mistake, but the mods still forwarded the information. So you didn’t prove anything.
1 Like
Cool, way to miss the point. The point is that people are annoyed with these reports because some of them are of dubious quality. The incorrect assumptions made in the F-8E bug report are part of the cause of this annoyance.
3 Likes
No, people only started having fits when he started reporting NATO aircraft. Honestly the quality of reports are a lot higher than most made on that site.
1 Like