Good point. I was lax with my wording.
The result remains the same however.
Especially with the fantasy overloads pulled in game and what other factors regarding airflow etc. we have that are not modelled realistically in game.
Those two exclusively are blatantly overperforming. Most of the rest are accurate or underperforms to some degree.
4 Likes
Uptade should be live today right?
Nope, most likely next week Monday or Tuesday
2 Likes
2 Likes
That’s a fucking laugh.
Will you fuck off and go back to whinging in the Flanker thread instead of slandering relatively accurate FMs? Gripen is arguably under performing if they applied the same rules they applied to yank planes.
Nah bro that’s some insane cope there. Gripen is a bit less of an UFO now than it was, but it’s still massively overperforming. Not saying other airframes aren’t though.
6 Likes
It really isn’t. It is not inline with the exaggerations Gaijin apply to limitations (It is shy of meeting them, but part of the way), but is quite close to available information with that caveat. People can bitch and moan all they want, but it is doing what it was designed to do. It is an unstable canard delta. Shit’s meant to be agile as fuck.
Other planes (notably deltas) are underperforming, and I hope they start bringing them on parity with available documentation. You do not need to take a hatchet to the one delta that’s actually performing vaguely close to reality to do that (with the caveat of Gaijin’s exaggerations that are generally employed across the board).
G limitation isn’t the problem, energy retention at all speeds but especially when slow is
People will believe what they want. Thing’s one of the more accurate FMs, compared with available documentation when accounting for Gaijin’s exaggerations. If Gaijin didn’t exaggerate stuff, as it stands now, it would be overperforming. However, they do. With this caveat in mind, it is as close to realism as we’ll get.
Should it be this way? Not particularly. Plane’s should be matched to their real limitations, across the board. But that isn’t how it works, and if these exaggerations are accounted for, pretty easy to see why shit ends up happening with a low drag aircraft with some exaggerations added to an already impressive performance.
For the Gripen, figures are more or less accurate to the knowledge we have available when accounting for Gaijin fudging numbers in similar areas that they screw with others. They stop exaggerating stuff across the board, it becomes inaccurate. However, accounting for these exaggerations it is about the best we’ll get.
As it stands most metrics end up comparable to where available documentation suggests they should be. Screwing with limitations means these metrics that are relatively accurate have some strange results.
Really can’t be fucked arguing this. As I said, folk who are opposed to the plane will say it is a fiction, like everything else isn’t. People who care about it and have stuck around doing research about it will generally agree that this is as close to accurate as it gets. Short of cutting away any and all exaggerations, which to be done fairly would need to occur across the board.
We don’t have an E-M (Energy-Maneuverability) diagram for Gripen, but we have one for IAI Lavi
Both Lavi and Gripen have a similar thrust to weight ratio and both are unstable delta + close coupled canards.
The Gripen in game, compared to known stats about IRL Lavi, has 2 to 3 times less bleed rate than the Lavi in speeds below Mach 0.7
For more details you can check this video :
Would it be 1.1 to 1.3 overperformance, i wouldn’t have mind too much, because a slight difference in airframe may cause this, but 2x to 3x time would mean the thing can bend physics.
So yes, Gripen overperforms massively. If it was realistic, it would basically be a slightly better mirage 2000 flight model, especially in the low speed handling, but that’s pretty much it.
Now regarding exagerations and sticking to real life, yes the game will never be fully realist on that matter, which doesn’t mean a huge gap like the Gripen’s one should be ignored when in plain sight like this.
4 Likes
Bruh, its like saying Ferrari Enzo and Lafferari are same vehicles.
Gripen’s design has nothing to do with Lavi.
1 Like
No, it’s comparing two similar designs that share features.
In your metaphor, it is comparing the Maserati MC12 to the Ferrari Enzo.
Both cars have roughly the same power, mass, weight distribution and are of the same vintage. Their transmissions are of the same principle.
One can extrapolate the general performance of the other by basing their analysis on one while examining the few differences they do have.
5 Likes
Yeah contrary to what I initially thought, the Su-27SM aint looking so great. The M2K5F is very very clearly the most overpowered plane of the update and frankly doesnt belong at 13.0 imo.
2 Likes
And just to chime in on the Gripen debate, I cant say for sure how accurate the gripen is to irl, but i know for a fact that the gripen has never been considered comparable to something like an F-16 in the rate fight irl, but can keep up quite well in-game, which is definitely eyebrow raising. Not that deltas are necessarily bad rate fighters, but afaik, the gripen just doesnt quite come to the level of a rate fight specialist like the F-16 irl, and very much feels like it does in-game.
Only deltas im aware of that can really compare to things like the F-15 or 16 in a rate are the EF typhoon and Rafale due to their T:W and overall better flight performance.
yup, due to too high energy retention at low speeds it can do this in game.
That being said, the F16 (especially the A) can do what i would consider impossible moves in the one circle.
To come back to the M2K, it would be fine at 13.0 with the correct amount of missile (x6 instead of x8)
MICA most likely still underperforms though (most likely due to wobbling)
iirc even the rafale doesnt quite compare (its kind of underpowered compared to most 4th gen aircrafts, being just barely under 1.0 TWR), tho i believe ive seen it stated as being closer. From pilot accounts from both germany and italy, Typhoon roughly matches the F-16 in a rate below 10kft and significantly outperforms it above that altitude, but Eurofighter has a very very high TWR comparatively speaking.
1 Like
Funny you mentioned about MC12.
Unlike Lavi and Gripen MC12 does have same body,engine and many things that was borrowed from Ferrari Enzo, despite sharing most components it was worse then Enzo in many category.
Lavi and Gripen does have similiar designs(not that much) that basically shares nothing, so claiming Gripen should have similiar performance to Lavi is quite funny.
2 Likes
Rafale with 4x Meteor and 4x MICA + full internal fuel would sit at 0.95 TWR
Once half the fuel is depleted, this would jump to roughly 1.13. Would taking full fuel in game with a Rafale be necessary ? That i don’t know, but M88 isn’t particularly a thirsty engine