This. As long as the performance matches reliable information the motivation behind it is a moot point.
1 Like
Again, his testing does not matter. The devs look at the material or the manuals first, and then come to their own conclusions. So even if he ran faulty tests, the materials he presented are correct and valid. Sometimes he does the tests right, sometimes he doesn’t. The devs do not require that the reports has correct testing, only correct materials.
At the end of the day, Gaijin will implement what the manuals say, and not what the bug reporters say. In that case, it does not matter what he says.
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. As such, they do not have merit. His motivation for doing this casts even further doubt on the veracity of his reports.
How many times does it need to be said? The testing does not matter. Only the material does.
If the plane’s manual says plane does 15 degrees a second, RideR’s ingame testing shows 20 degrees a second, and dev’s ingame testing shows 18 degrees a second, Gaijin will still correct the plane to 15 degrees. What matters is what the manuals say.
His tests are wrong. The manual he provided is not. The devs will interpret the data themselves and can make the flaps match the charts as required.
Edit: I’m fairly certain the only reason he does the ingame tests is because they will not accept a report without showing a discrepancy ingame, same as all bug reports.
2 Likes
Yes, but if you look at his reports all of them are based around his “tests” with half of them not having any sort of manual or other source to back up his claims. You can see in F-16A ADF, Su-17M4, and MiG-23ML reports do not have any actual sources to back them up. Even the reports he has submitted other sources for don’t even back up his claims.
1 Like
This is correct, Gaijin requires people to do SOME kind of testing, even if the testing isn’t perfect, so that they aren’t wasting their time on things that haven’t been vetted by a tech mod first.
1 Like
I have to be harsh here. Do you really think he is just putting up random numbers and developers are just accepting his random numbers without any manuals? I don’t mean to be mean, but think properly. The materials are still there, they’re just hidden.
3 Likes
Let’s think critically, he is essentially putting up random numbers because his testing method is faulty. He can add manuals and other sources of course, but the main gist of his reports is built off of deliberately incorrect methodology. Which is why the developers have responded to, and continue to respond to his reports, denying them. There are plenty of reports that get made using erroneous information/methods that get accepted and passed on the developers and are then denied. I am simply stating that his reports are intentionally misleading and are now being outed as such.
2 Likes
he goes after bunch of prem vehicles to LMAO
You’re spreading misinformation. The developers have not rejected his reports. They simply stated his testing was a little off but that they will still implement his reports as it did show that the flight performance was still overperforming for a lot of the aircrafts, just not to to the extent he originally state. Name one report where they said that they rejected his report. I’ll wait.
Sure. They rejected his F-16A ADF report, stating that it is not a bug. You can find the thread here: Community Bug Reporting System. Hope this helps!
2 Likes
They still stated he had merit in his report and that they may change the aircraft in the future.
Developer’s reply:
Target performance was 5000ft and ~16.0 deg/s ±0.5 for M0.7…0.8 for 23700 with 2 missiles. We don’t adjusting exact turn rate curve for any height and speed and can’t create M0.5 anomaly exact, usually it is one-two points. The low speed and target turn rates is correct enough for now.
Player measurements data looks like not correct, calculated and actual sustained turn rate at SL is close enough too except of M0.5 anomaly.
*Looks on M0.5 region closer in future, but now it does not need significantly changes.
This report disproves your initial assumption that the developers do not do their own testing or that testing is the main part of the report. Devs will look at the materials, do their own testing and come to their own conclusions. It does not matter how he does his tests.
2 Likes
They didn’t reject it. The accepted the document. The current flight model was close enough to not need adjustment for that anomaly.
Flight models in WT are not 1:1 with reality because WT itself is not 1:1 with reality. You can’t just change a single value and have it perform correctly, it affects everything with the flight envelope.
It’s the same reason why when people were hyperfocusing on the Oswald efficiency of the Su-27 they were in the wrong.
6 Likes
MLD supremacy!
dont he dare touch my G.91,s
Nowhere have I stated that. To wit, you asked for them rejecting a bug report. Them listing a report as not a bug is the developers doing just that. I accept your concession.
2 Likes
You have implied that developers will just take his numbers at his words, and even stated there was no materials in the reports he’s done.
If it makes you feel better, then I concede on this part because it really doesn’t matter either way even though developers have stated they will still tune the aircraft in the future as their response.
You made a lot of assumptions earlier on thinking that his testing or his motivation matters, that’s the crux of the issue, I’m just here to say that it’s not.
Also, RideR2 is a pretty nice guy, he’s willing to share with people the materials he’s using. If you don’t trust his tests, feel free to do your own.
I made no such assumptions. In fact, I have been very complimentary towards the dev team for doing their own tests and pushing back on the conclusions RideR2 made from his unsound tests. Instead I commented on the veracity of his claims along with the hope that the dev team do push back on these reports. Not sure where you are getting the idea that I am making such insinuations but it is deeply ironic that you are criticizing me (unfairly) for making assumptions while making considerable assumptions yourself.