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.
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.
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”.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I havent seen any of them, but I’ve heard it was stuff like the Draken and Viggen. Which I kinda get a little. Draken’s are over-BRed with no CMs as it is. Though maybe this means they can get a BR drop. Viggens just suffer from Compression more than anything, like a lot of things do at that BR. Especially the Cs.
The subreddit is going nuts.
I’m not surprised the F-16/F-5/F-20 nerfs aren’t going though
F-5s just need their engine temps doubled and they would be perfectly balanced
I wouldn’t mind seeing them go up to 11.0 also.
But apparently they are over performing. I don’t know how true it is, just going by what’s being said.
That’s what I’m wondering. Does he think people aren’t allowed to have some inaccuracies?
If RideR2’s reports should be dismissed because of some inaccuracies with the limited tools he has available, does he then think no one should be making bug reports at all?
Let’s not forget that RideR2 proved that devs incorrectly modeled the Mig-23’s turn rate because the devs themselves made a mistake in implementing it. I guess they too should not touch flight models with the way this conversation is going.
He also keeps claiming RideR2’s reports are “dubious quality” despite never having done any flight model reports himself, so it is bad-faith of him to judge exactly what is good quality or not.