Certainly possible, but not done yet.
1 Like
I really want them on the IDSs
I just said it makes it worse for me personally.
That’s still mostly the case though
Game Engine upgrade soon? :)
Only when there is a soviet jet they can’t code properly due to game limitations.
(Officially saying “called it” that the tornado FM model got fixed the same update that added the Su-24)
6 Likes
No reason not to add them for both F.3 and the GR.1 any more. As it seems that for Gaijin at least, it’s now possible to retexture drop tanks without making a new drop tank model for each plane that will use them.
I’ve noticed the new F-111s and the Italian pre-95 IDS are using this method
I wish it was clear if this was something we will be able to do with unlockable camos and user-made camos as well, but I haven’t managed to get it working when the tanks are jettisoned like they do on the baseline Aussie F-111F skin.
2 Likes
Nah, there’s another whole host of issues that require a game engine upgrade that can have them working hard at one right now.
Yup this.
The fundamental problem is that the entire WT code is made for WW2 stuff. Simulating supersonic behavior and all the problems it brings is another beast entirely. And we see it as Gaijin is clearly struggling with modern FMs. Everything soviet is a mess. Some planes like the F20 and J7E are complete UFO. Mirage 2000 flies very weirdly (it’s not bad per se, but it’s weird. I’m pretty sure it should have a far better roll rate at low speed too). And now Tornado is apparently breaking at the seams.
At some point they will have to figure things out. We’re getting close to gen 4.5 planes with Rafale, F18s and EF, and I’m 100% sure their FM will be a mess at first.
Could someone dumb this down for me, i dont really have experience about how models work apart from how they use the calculations. Why is it the engine struggles, is it simply due to being to archaic for jets with such modern aerodynamics and complex geometry?
Dagor 6.5 is good for fixed wing aircraft.
Swing-wing came after Dagor 6.5 though.
Along with a whole host of other things.
War Thunder needs RCS, swing wing, improved FM general, improved radar simulation, improved ground physics, regen steering, torque converter simulation, etc.
Game is made for static winged vehicles.
Swing wing isn’t inherently supported by the Game Engine.
I did test it. To be fair, the Turn is actually quite respectable. Trouble is the speed retention once you’ve got the wings forward and flaps out just goes out the window. Combine the fact you now can’t go as fast as you used to, and Snail decrees we cannot accelerate as hard as previously (not that we could accelerate much anyway) it might take some getting used to.
It just does not feel right aerodynamics wise
Throw the Gripen in there too. They couldn’t get it to be uber manouevrable without having stupid retention for the first couple of weeks.
The game is built on the WW2 designs. The flight models and vehicle models are taken from a library Gaijin have, and are tweaked to allow the aircraft to perform the way Gaijin think it should.
We have seen a host of issues with the new processes and mechanics the engine is being asked to do.
From Radar not being blocked by trees or even mountains, to something simple like engine exhaust being modelled on the actual engine temperature as per a WW2 Piston engine aircraft and not at the exhaust like a jet aircraft.
Then we have “spaghetti coding” Gaijin discovers a problem and code over it with a fix but in doing so they break something fundamental in the game. Due to the makeup of the coding they want to keep this new feature so they write code over to fix that. Soon this becomes a mess and we see frequently and will see it with the next update that some lesser played vehicle or mechanic is not working and that’s the result of the coding practises.
We at this point need a “Warthunder 2” starting from scratch with an engine capable of meeting what Gaijin need and future proofing it.
1 Like
cold fusion F-5 engines are fearing for their lives
Exactly this. Iirc someone (Flame? Fireball? Morv?) provided substantial evidence that you basically can’t get an IR seeker lock on a Harrier from a top down aspect.
Yet in actual practice the Harrier can prove to be rather… reluctant to not get locked by IR missiles.
3 Likes
Still infuriates me that they took the engine temp of the f5 from the jet and the plume which we have significant data on as nasa and another country (dont qoute me as a know the guy will pop up here and give you the names) measured it themselves for testing.
Especially after coming from a game where my r60m refused to lock an f5 from the side aspect untill 1.4km away…
3 Likes
3 Likes
It has been confirmed that engine temperature does not impact how easy it is to lock the target. Apparently how much thrust the engine produces is all that matters.
2 Likes
Yep
I’ve got one better for you. SRAAM. 0.5km. Fails to acquire, even when the F-5 flies pretty much in front of the seeker (can’t get a guns solution on him, hence the want to chuck an SRAAM at him)
3 Likes