They probably should be disabled in night battles. Kinda BS spending nearly 1000 SP on PGMs only to have to J out because you can’t do anything
Did the Tonka even use the IR versions of the PGM’s?
I have no idea, but as they were developed by the US and the UK. I would be very surprised if they werent at least able to. I feel the TV sight is just Gaijin needing/balancing
Don’t even know if that’s possible, just swap to a different loadout?
I will be in the future, but I had no idea at the time that TV optics didn’t work in a night battles.
I can’t imagine how many people have encountered that. Especially some nations that use a lot of TV optics like the soviets
I remember it being discussed when the Mavericks came into the game.
I thought that was a bug. They were really buggy back then anyway.
LSZ symbology for the HUD is now available on the dev server. I’m chasing down the radar display symbology as well.
14 Likes
Early access haver.
Will you also make a short guide on how to read the new HUD symbology?
I’m already having trouble reading it XD
2 Likes
Thank you 😁
Now this is what we need ASAP:
1 Like
The Tonka is real
Also GR.1 can carry Litening III, 2 Paveways IV and a single Brimstone. Source? I made it, litearly, from the bricks.
6 Likes
Hello there, I created a thread regarding the astronomical fuel consumption when using the Afterburner of the “Tornado IDS ASSTA1” which can be found here: Tornado afterburner fuel consumption
Or you can just look into this spoiler with the contents.
Spoiler
I just noticed that the fuel consumption while using the afterburner of the “Tornado IDS ASSTA1” is sevenfold (7x!) of the dry thrust at 100% judging by the fuel flow counter in the cockpit and the remaining fuel time countdown acceleration.
I searched for quite a bit but could only find the fuel consumption for the dry thrust of the Turbo-Union RB199 which ist around 18,38 g/kNs for the Mk.103 variant. So in-game this engine guzzles 128,66 g/kNs or 700% more fuel for 75% more thrust which seems quite unrealistic for me as all other jet engines of that time (like the P&W F100) use only 2-3 times or 100-200% more fuel when afterburning achieving a comparable or just slightly lower rise in thrust level.
For comparision these are the values of fuel consumption i found for a few engines:
GE F404:
Thrust dry: 48,9 kN
Thrust wet: 78,7 kN (+60%)
TSFC dry: 23 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 49 g/kNs (+113%)
Pratt & Whitney PW-F100-220:
Thrust dry: 63,9 kN
Thrust wet: 105,72 kN (+65%)
TSFC dry: 21,52 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 54,94 g/kNs (+155%)
Klimov RD-33:
Thrust dry: 50 kN
Thrust wet: 81,3 kN (+63%)
TSFC dry: 20,83 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 52,25 g/kNs (+151%)
Saturn AL-31:
Thrust dry: 76,49 kN
Thrust wet: 122,6kN (+60%)
TSFC dry: 22,1 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 55,5 g/kNs (+151%)
Turbo-Union RB199 Mk.103:
Thrust dry: 40,5 kN
Thrust wet: 71,2 kN (+75%)
TSFC dry: 18,38 g/kNs
TSFC wet: 128,66 g/kNs (+700%) (calculated from the ingame values)
I don’t know if this is a bug, just a forgotten placeholder value or twisted numbers but it doesn’t seem plausible at all. I can neither find sources which confirm the engines afterburner fuel consumption is that astronomically high nor ones that refute it. So what’s the reason to place this value so far off the normal charts? Anyone with sources or thoughts on this one?
So yeah… Anyone with sources, details or anything else which would explain in a plausible way that every other jet engine of that time has an afterburner fuel consumption of around 2-3 times of that of the dry thrust, while the Tornados Turbo-Union RB199 has one of around 7 times? There is no other engine with fuel consumption that high while afterburning and i couldn’t even find a source where the fuel consumption was detailed (for the afterburner at least), so i guess it’s either a placeholder for an unknown value or a bug. In the case of a placeholder the question would be: Why place it so extremly off the charts instead around the average of every other engine of that thrust level from that time?
5 Likes
In real life using full afterburner on the Tornado increased fuel consumption by approximately 6x.
So according to you data the Tornado in game is a little to fuel thirsty (7x), but not massively so.
As far as I know the issue in game is that nearly every afterburning jet is far more fuel efficient than it should be, rather than the Tornado being much less fuel efficient than it should be.
9 Likes
As far as I know the issue in game is that nearly every afterburning jet is far more fuel efficient than it should be, rather than the Tornado being much less fuel efficient than it should be.
So what should be the take on that? Bringing the rest of the planes in line with such a high realistic fuel consumption (which contradicts the official numbers for the other engines with 2-3 times more fuel for +60-65% thrust) or bring the tornado down to these much more efficient numbers? Either way currently it’s all over the place with the Tornados getting their “real” fuel consumption while the other planes get their “official” numbers.
By the way i seem to got the magnitude wrong in my first post so it isn’t a rise of 700% in fuel consumption but a total of 700% as the counter goes from 1 to 7 and not from 0 to 7 which equals a rise of 600% (totaling to 700% consumption) which would be correct.
Personally I’d say all aircraft should be modelled properly.
Also what do you mean by “real” and “official” fuel consumption. Either an aircraft matches the fuel consumption listed in official documentation, or it does not.
Is there any guarantee these numbers are not exaggerated or excessively rounded? After all, this document states that the thrust ratio is 2:1 (whereas it’s 1.75:1, or 7:4 in game). I know the Tornado was known to be exceptionally fuel hungry on reheat, but to be more than twice as fuel hungry as the big russian jets, while producing less power?
No, I’ve never come across any doc that states figures exaggerated or excessively rounded. I suspect alot of aircraft are actually overperforming in fuel consumption rather than the Tornado being wrong.