Not wasting my time with the F-15C "Golden Eagle"

[I_MiikaL_I]

@VXS1

a point of just fucking guessing and it worries me even more now with how were rushing newer and newer jets each update

Which is why I think gaijin needs to announce the next steps of advancement in a roadmap, and coordinate source collecting with the community.

This process would take longer than gaijin’s internal sourcing does, but would result in more scrutiny and a signifigantly more ‘polished’ vehicle as opposed to the current guesswork, especially in relation to FM and missile capabilities.

Idk call me crazy; but i think, now more than ever, that gaijin should be working with us in order to compile a sensible, scrutinised and complete picture before adding these jets instead of making us bug report basic issues for a year after (as seen with eurofighter). We need to pace ourselves too, as to not run out of content and have said content be sloppy & unfinished.

[VALKEN]

100% AGREE updates honestly should be slower or fewer their is no way for them to keep up with new additions and feature like they use to as the code ages even more but I do understand that the forum are not the majority of the player base and most casuals only come back during major updates so they have to pump them out constantly to satiate them, but half those casuals aren’t even at the BR’s to play these constant additions yet.

Next parts a bit of a rant sorry :)

They if they wanted to still put out as many updates as they do, just use Korean or earlier vehicles for them those, at least have a shit-ton of sources allowing them to make good historic additions that a majority ask for while making other updaters more well developed and less constant modern stuff, more bug fixes and system upgrades for all players to enjoy,

I will blatantly say it I hate ww2 vehicles outside a few goofy ones and the Shermans, and I only like aircraft from the late Korean war and after but its getting absurd, we are probably at the point where the f22A is added at some point some point soon and so much of it is going to be placeholder, that it will somehow be balanced at the same tier or BR as the rafale.

last note I really wish their was separate forum where they post stuff their looking into adding, like confirm their adding I.E F22A , SU57, and F35 which are 100% being added as the obvious next TT vehicle with the very limited rosters to choose from, not player suggestions like dual flamethrower no main cannon Sherman or the su47) where people can submit source and discuss with each other if it can be used based on rules that gaijin makes clear that they use internally) I don’t count the machinery of war tab especially for top tier because its as cancerous to read through as people doing anime theoretical VS like Saitama vs Goku and it kills my braincells, (su57 one perfectly displays that lol.)

Also I swear to god they started doing roadmaps, like they did 2 for the two previous years and then just stopped and they didn’t even complete all of them either from memory.

Also last thing how is a portion of the community more affective at sourcing evidence than fucking payed Devs, not the suggestion mods those are separate I think, this is a peeve of mine their is no way they are this ineffective at their job their has to be something holding them back.

edit after the fact cause I accidentally clicked post, why do they not either higher more Devs or give more time the Devs are obviously overwhelmed and the ones coding aren’t at fault with code 13 years old, fan theory I have its a reverse overwatch instead of abandoning it for 5 years while making an updated engine, their implementing as much shit as possible like models and place holder stats and abandoning minor hardware bugs because they will be switching to the new engine.

sadly that isn’t happening, who knows maybe I’m wrong I pray to god I am because they do need a new engine rapidly for the developers sake and for our Esport ready gaming experience lol. I do feel genuinely bad for the Devs their was like a week and a half from Tuskforce update to the first Spearhead dev blog and only one extra week till the dev server lol.

[racimazzedine]

wall of text

[Code_649]

damn it got flagged before I even saw what you said, rip

[VALKEN]

luckily the only actual relevant part was first paragraph

[AlvisWisla]

@Code_649 Both loaded with 9 minutes of afterburning fuel [9 minutes at SL going 1000kph, as fuel consumption changes based on speed and altitude. This method is also from the WT air playerbase.]:
Brakes off: -3 seconds. 2 minutes 51 seconds, or 171 seconds.


MSIP II/GE: With 4 less missiles.
-4 seconds: 2 minutes 47 seconds with 4 less missiles.

F-16C: -5 seconds, 3 minutes 9 seconds or 189 seconds.

The only way you can get F-16C to win this is by bringing less fuel.

Edit: F-15J is 3 seconds faster than F-15C MSIPII/GE to mach 1.5 with 4 missiles.
So 174 is likely the F-15GE in this equal test. Which is still faster than the 189 of F-16C.

NATO standard test is used for empathetic and ease of comparison to real-world data reasons.

[vito_xD]

idk why man

[VALKEN]

Firstly, no clue why you decided to perform a separate test for comparison when your not even aware of the most efficient way to maximise speed and height while climbing, we set out a step by step guide for you to be able to reproduce this, and not only do you create your own, you don’t even gather accurate data, I decided to redo your test with specifications.

Both aircraft’s brakes are fully held until they are forced forward even slightly by either jet immediately after take off I entered a 12-13 degree climb with afterburners only leveling off when reaching 10000 meters like I had to assume you did time starts at aircraft leaving the brakes cause why would you count that towards this test, lastly all answers are rounded to nearest whole number,(you can still see the milliseconds in the images.) To the results cause man were you off,

F16c 100% fuel, 6 AMRAAM’s and the 2 370 gallon wing based drop tanks: 155 seconds.

F16c 100% fuel and an actual match load out, (6 AMRAAM’s): 127 seconds.

F15c GE 100% fuel, halved missile load and the center line drop tank 610 gallons: 174 seconds.

F15c GE 100% fuel, actual missile load, (8 AMRAAM A’s); 168 seconds

I’ll stop their for now but you had to either have purposefully chosen a bad climb angle to force the results you want, please send the exact methodology you used to get your results as I obviously want to fairly test it using your gameplay but as it stands your just lying or obscuring the truth.

Also if you need I can provide video links of more tests if this continues along side the stopwatch.

[Alpharius11348]

if you look at statshark optimal climb (shown on altitude envelope chart) with both aircraft at 30% fuel, it takes the F15C ~120 seconds to reach 10km altitude while in the same time frame the F16C can get above 15km

and the same thing with full fuel shows F15C taking ~160 seconds to reach 10km while F16C can reach 16km in the same time

[AlvisWisla]

I use NATO time to climb test standards because players want the ability to cite real documentation with the in-game results to see how accurate the game is.
The NATO time to climb test route is available via searching.
And of course, said documentation is written in a manner that’s based on the best available climb rate at all times for “maximum SEP”.

Sad to see a post accuse NATO of awful things.

With that said, in-matches I use optimal acceleration and preferred altitudes when doing BVR [which is ~8000 meters due to higher air density].

The edit added further clarification.

Edit 2: Here are images provided by Alpharius that prove this correct:

Spoiler

[Alpharius11348]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[Emperor_Rimuru]

I have a 60% win rate and 1.2 kd in it according to StatShark. I’m not a particularly good player either.

[PyroAddict]

Your point being? You have 1.22 kills per death and 1.02 kills per game, which is a reasonable top deviation from stats. I’ve also took high ratios on my sample, while also counting people with ratios as low as 0.36 kpd.

Just wait and check the numbers when they come by Statshark, people ain’t thriving with a glorified MSIP II as they supposedly should by allegedly many people on this thread.

[racimazzedine]

why dont you give it a try. at this point you posted more than 40 message about the ge. try it

[PyroAddict]

I can actually buy and try it, but I'm not giving Gaijin the satisfaction of investing my SL on a glorified F-15C MSIP II. They will have to fix/buff it first instead.

Besides, people still comment about ghosting on the GE’s radar. And honestly? If its main feature (and lets remember is the big compromise for lacking thrust, air-to-ground ordnance and flight performance) also has glaring issues, I’d rather just play the Rafale or the F-15E.

[racimazzedine]

gotta farm these sl up, gambling comming soon

[Alpharius11348]

eg. this is for an F16A/B

and now compare to F15A

and now the F-4E

do you not see how they are all different?
these are the climb schedules used for the time to climb charts in the manuals, and coincidentally the time to climb numbers people will reference

I dont know where you would get the idea that every NATO plane climbed using the same climb schedule but it is blatantly false

[VALKEN]

Partially want to respond to this and your private message, one I apologies if the insults hurt your feelings, but it in my opinion is the only succinct way to show an upset tone without giving a ton of prefacing info or creating a wall of text which a lot of users are not fans of reading, I feel bad that it came off the way it did to you and I can 100% understand why it came off that way in future when discussing with you I’ll use nicer language.

Secondly stating you use NATO time to climb standards and that you can just google to confirm is disingenuous at best or simply lying at worst, you cannot put it on other users to tell if your giving any accurate info or working off a real standard, I personally believe you are using a true doc but even after navigating the top 10 pages on google using “NATO time to climb test route” I’ve seen nothing relevant to what your saying. This is not your fault as google can be iffy, but still please at least quote or link something when you make a claim such as that, I do genuinely want to have a look through that document now so if you could link it, that would be lovely.

No one here or at least most of us are intending to accuse NATO of awful things like rigging, this is a War Thunder issue not a real-life military and NATO one, you performed a completely different test without stating what you used before this message and how you ended up with your results that’s the issue here. Once I get the doc I would be more than happy to recreate your experiment to your exact specifications to confirm your correct, the results don’t matter to me I’m going to be playing the F15 over the F16 anyways regardless of if War Thunder is modeling something wrong.

Last thing, back to the direct message, cause this partially annoyed me if your going to hide behind a claim that’s not been sourced yet to try and state because you got a different result using a completely unknown method that my trials are incorrect and that my input is just invalid like if your right and the source is true that’s okay I’m more than happy to be proven wrong its kinda the point of these discussions to expand our outlooks and become more informed. however the way to do that is by sourcing the evidence, not use a passive aggressive asshole tone in private while complain about my post rudeness at the same time, (which is again fair but don’t take the highroad in public and private while doing the same exact thing in private, lol.)

TLDR: If you could PLS post that source that would be brilliant I do love finding and reading the neat technical and testing document, No one has anything against NATO you just poorly explained and discussed your scientific process in your original post.

Again I do apologies for the way the language did come off for you, your criticism of that itself was 100% fair, I hold no resentment or hatred for you so I obviously don’t want my posts to come off as personal attacks and I’ll look how to rephrase them in future discussion with other similar users.

[VALKEN]

This comment didn’t even really say something that would get it flagged when I glance at it before wonder why It got flagged?

[AlvisWisla]

I appreciate the civil response.
I perform a time to climb test based on the standards used, which results in different climb schedules for each aircraft as it’s based on best climb rate.

Some of my sources were already posted by Alpharius.

Also @Alpharius11348 100% is repeating my belief about each aircraft having unique climb schedules.
I am glad he and I agree, as well as the other 5 that agree with us.

Acceleration data is different, many acceleration tests are done around 10,609 meters, if not all.
Typhoon, F-15, F-16, etc have all had acceleration tests done around 10,609 meters.
Cause for some reason that’s what they do. They accelerate from 0.9x to mach 1.5.

So the regiment I’ve done is accelerate to climb speed, climb until 10,000 meters, level off to 10,600 meters and accelerate to mach 1.5.
Which of course match the documents posted thus far because that’s how I formed this strategy.
Because doing 3 video recordings worth of tests per aircraft in the game is 3x the work; AND doing a 4th recording for fastest to mach 1.5 or top speed for every aircraft is even more work, especially when most players will never do high-speed high altitude BVR in most jets.

Edit changed the final part of the post to be more clarifying.