Hello Pacifica, so the time has come, huh?
Thread cleaned up… some innocent posts may have gone as well… since dont have time to read 60+ posts, and they are replies that are just deleted from the main offending post(s)…
3- 5 users have time away from the forum for their trouble… I lost count of exact number…
These Guidelines strictly prohibit the following:
3.1. It is forbidden to publish any texts, documents, images, recordings, videos, files, and other content which are in any way associated with:
3.1.1 profanity, obscene and offensive language, words, phrases, and abbreviations (including their disguised forms);
3.1.2 insulting the Administration in person;
3.1.3 insulting other members of the community;
3.1.4 rudeness and vulgarity against them;
3.1.6 political and religious agitation and propaganda, including propagation of conflicts; discussion of actual political and religious issues is also prohibited due to the provocative nature: we urge you not to draw comparisons between war-historical themes and any of the political events;
yes indeed! ^^
I entirely agree. Regardless if the model is broken or 100% accurate I blame gajin for introducing a plane that retains three times as much energy as anything else. I don’t think anyone on here is at fault for it and I’m baffled why half of you seems so eager to jump in the line of fire to defend a plane that in it’s current form should not be in the game
Also entirely agree. The difference is that the F-16’s overperformance can, at least in part, be explained because WT doesn’t model FBW limiters. FBW limiter will probably never be modeled simply because they will unfairly disadvantage more modern planes that have them, in a game where F4s and Mig23s can pull 12 Gs.
Because the damage has already been done and Gripen is here, i want my Gripen as accurate as possible compare to its real life performance but i also dont like to see the adjusments based on assumptions.
Well if Gaijin properly models of airframe stress then FBW will be more like an actual advantage in those case but i highly doubt they will do such a complex thing considering they didnt even introduced this feature on planes.
I can sympathize with that but at the end of the day this is a game first. Is it worth anything to have a plane be 100% accurate if it makes people leave the game because it outperforms everything else?
İ can also understand this and kinda agree on that part, well looks like we’re just gonna sit back and watch how Gaijin will react to this situation i guess.
Some info on the RM12 engine from GEs website.
So when the F-14A was demolishing everything else by a country mile in every single metric (better missiles, better turning performance, better engine power, better radar, ya know, pretty much everything) why didn’t that get nerfed into the ground artificially?
As I’ve said earlier, it sets a horrific precedent for the game if you start nerfing stuff ahistorically for the sake of “balance”… we all know whatever equation or model aircraft statistics gets fired through lead to ludicrous balancing choices (PFM to 9.0? F-104 to 9.3? MiG-19 to 9.3? Su-11 at 7.0?? F-89s at 7.3???)
As far as I’m concerned, if there is genuine, provable historical basis for the Gripen Flight Model to get nerfed, so be it. But I’m not going to agree with nerfing it based on the fact that everyone statistically is doing well with it and not so well in their F-16s.
It is somewhat not Gaijin’s fault that the US just didn’t really buy into the whole Canards and Manouevrability thing at that point (at least not widely, I’m aware they made some prototypes along those lines, and Tigershark when?) but demolishing the one big selling point of the Gripen (the very good flight performance) for the sake of letting Americans and Russians have a field day? No one had a problem with the F-14, or the F-16A (post MiG-29 FM nerf), so why suddenly is the Gripen getting bashed?
It’d be like saying to Tornado ADV/F.3 pilots “hey you’re doing pretty well, we’re gonna nerf your radar into the ground to the point where you may as well just push close combat, oh, and we’re gonna make your flight model act like a brick, with even less speed than you already have”
It is simply not reasonable to nerf things ahistorically, for the sake of balance.
And I’m going to warn you, if you don’t like the Gripen being insanely good compared to the F-16, I suggest you leave the game, or at least top tier Air RB. It’s only getting more like this when Typhoon and Rafale rock up.
If it aint broke, don’t fix it.
It’s only been what… 15, 16 years?
It has been broke, with competitive users abusing the trim function to overcome G lock and sustain higher G turns for longer for positional advantage in tournaments for some time. There are a myriad of issues but culminating in the broken F-16 & Gripen FM imo
Currently in-game the F-16 does not stand a chance if it attempts to rely on power to weight ratio against the Gripen.
Bro… literally in the quote you provided:
“a higher T/W might only compensate for a higher drag and doesn’t give more “net” power to give acceleration and speed”
This is exactly the case, and it’s realistic. The fact that the Gripen achieves a higher top speed than the F-18 with only one of its engines tells you everything you need to know. The F-16’s excess T/W in this case is only making up for its excessive drag.
I said the same thing 2 years ago. The 23MLD was the first plane that broke whatever semblance of balance and its been swinging one way or another ever since then. And yes if you dig up my forum history on the old forum you’ll see exactly that, me complaining about every broken plane. (Although it did feel good to dunk on MLDs in the F14, I wont deny that part)
The fact the Gripen is doing very well compared to everything else is not the reason it should be nerfed, its a reason to look more closely at it’s performance metrics. I think it’s been pretty well established there is, in fact, no magic involved, and yet the Gripen somehow retains 3 times as much energy as the F16 (for example) while pulling the same rate. That’s simply unrealistic unless we’re bringing magic into the equation. The Gripen shouldn’t be nerfed because wallet warriors with less than 50 hours in the game are getting trashed, the Gripen should get nerfed because it’s current flight model is defying the laws of physics. Bear in mind that the problem is going to get exponentially worse when gaijin finally budge and give us RBEC or 6v6 on the current RB maps. Right now performance means very little in 9/10 games simply because there are 15 other people slinging missiles. If you get into a 1v1 though the Gripen mops the floor with every other plane.
We’ve already been over this, the documents are classified but it definitely looks like the Gripen is overperforming
That’s a funny way of saying “Ill get smashed by a 120D at 80 kilometers”. BVR is the only way top tier has a future and if Gaijin finally decide to fix multipathing you in your Rafael are going to be getting slammed out of the sky by F-15s before you know there is someone there (obviously overexaggerating slightly)
That I can agree on. The retention is a bit… ehhhh… and it does certainly hold energy very well for a 9G turn at high subsonic speeds. Whether it’s realistic I couldn’t tell you, but I do agree it doesn’t feel right.
However, your (reasonable) take is not representative of everyone else’s reasons for wanting the Gripen nerfed… refer to Original Poster and MiG-23s various comments further up
Haven’t you heard of this thing, it’s called MBDA Meteor, it’s very entertaining to hear you wave around scoring a hit at 80kms, when Meteor had a no escape zone of 60kms, and the chances are that it’ll blap people who have no idea they’re even being launched on (TWS and Ramjet is quite an entertaining combination)
Yeah, thrust to weight varies hugely with speed, and we don’t have accurate data for the thrust curve of the RM12. Whereas a 30% reduction in wing loading has a benefit at all airspeeds.
Meteor >> AMRAAM
ASRAAM/IRIS-T >> 9X
If we’re going that far ahead (Pretty sure the Meteor entered service in 2016ish) we might as well throw in the AIM260. While ramjets might be quite funny, I assure you a staged missile is a lot funnier.
Which AMRAAM in particular? There are quite a few versions and while the difference between a C2 and C3 might not be noticeable in WT, a D3 on the other hand can comfortably get to it’s target before a Meteor if launched at lower alts and closer ranges
Again which version? The 9X block 3 is probably behind the IRST but its not by much
Anyways this is going way off topic, we wont be seeing any of those missiles for at least 2 years
European missiles also undergo upgrades. If you want to compare blocks from the same development time periods, then the 9X is substantially behind the ASRAAM.
FYI, the main reason the Meteor took so long to go into service was the Americans dragging their heels with integrating it to the F-35, trying to strongarm nations into buying the AIM260, which is over-budget and has delayed production…
This is what people above are talking about. A lot of these “thoughts” and “feelings” on the current Gripen FM are founded on the basis that Americans/Russians can’t believe anyone is capable of making stuff better than them.
Personally, I suspect the issues stem from the unknown engine curve of the RM12. Currently the SEP might be too high due to low drag. If drag is too low, it might be because they are trying to force something with the exact same engine curve as a Hornet, to match the advertised flight parametres of the Gripen. If they increase the drag and flatten the engine curve perhaps that would help things.
I am neither of those and while I am absolutely sure other nations can make good equipment, $700bn probably makes a noticeable difference
That might be the case, as I’ve said in this thread before, I have a rudimentary, at best, understanding of aerodynamics and am sure there are more knowledgeable people around. But I can look at a graph, do some quick math and arrive at the conclusion it is in fact retaining too much energy