Mines about 76% and just over a 3.0 had some silly games with friends which resulted in crashing into one another though 🤣
1 Like
I mean we can both scratch off one death on that front ahaha…
Do you think I was wrong about anything in that report? Or were they referring to me thinking it should act like an aircraft with negative static stability?
1 Like
My winrate was in the high 90% range but it has slowly ticked down to low 90s. I think it’s because US+JPN teams were so unbelievably bad but now getting slightly better. I could not get 90% winrates in an OP prop if I tried.
2 Likes
Yeah that was just a engine inspection 😂
If you have a 50% WL rate in the Tornado you should have a freaking 99% WL rate in any other top tier plane :D
1 Like
uhhh is it just me or is the model for the bol rails missing when using the 9L
what the hell its there in a match???
Try deleting the loadout and remaking it if its custom.
its not a custom loadout tho
The bug report is good, it’s just that they insist the aircraft is statically stable, and fail to recognize that the aerodynamic center is not a fixed point, so as the static margin and they would change as AOA increases.
If the game coded a fixed static margin then it’s wrong. It’s as funny as they said the F-16C has a positive static margin, but neglect the fact that the aerodynamic center shifts forward at high AOA, making it highly unstable.
Ultimately, we got proof from SAAB that both the canard and elevon deflect downward as AOA increases, as explained here:
And the pitching moment coefficient curve that I would very much like to see how they could draw a curve that represents the neutral canard position that has a downward slope (positive static margin).
4 Likes
Like this:
2 Likes
Tbh, i dont see any reason for another nerf… there is no documentation that would support another nerf. Besides the thrust apparently but we will see there. Current STR is according to calculations in bug report.
3 Likes
yeah, but remember in game efficiency supersedes all. GJ monitors in game data. Historical accuracy comes second.
Thats why imo the best thing to do is focus on the underperforming, unmodelled features of the other new fighters. Then if the Gripen is truly overperforming when it’s all said and done, then we can address it.
It seems highly unwise to cut down the only decently performing aircraft (The British & Swedes FINALLY get) when the others are obviously not complete. Right? F-15 radar? Aim7? Su27 radar?
Or are they really modelled correctly and there is nothing else but to start chopping down the Gripen?
1 Like
gaijan doesnt nerf flight models based on game efficiency thats more in the realm of repair costs and battle rating
Drake, yes, they do. Flight models and weapons. They even outrageously buff models due to lack of efficiency.
(F-104)
Some complain about the F-16 being one as well. What makes you think they do not cut down models if it’s extremely evident they over buff them due to efficiency?
Even FM of misiles are intentionally nerfed.
the developer just came out and said we nerfed the Aim7 by resetting the control fins to neutral when signal loss occurs because at the time of implementation of radar missiles it proved to potent and they received too many complaints with the title “aim7 turns to amraam”. Aim7s used to maintain the same course when signal is loss giving a player an opportunity to reacquire a lock and connect.
That is no longer the case and Aim7s still magically detonate if left unattended for too long.
Aim54? Red Tops?
The Mirage 3 was held back for years when it was completely evident the Delta wing platform is one of the most aerodynamic patterns known to man.
3 Likes
I mean if you think they do cool, but I dont think so
1 Like
lol I am only going off what they say and the evidence bro. But, yes of course.
Also, you are right in regard to battle rating as well.
Additionally, they use the matchmaker as a tool to balance.
There are many tools they utilize to “balance” in game efficiency. But nerfing is the last option. However, they have just came forward and said they have no intention of decompressing the BR. That they will “monitor” the Gripen model.
Its highly evident what will come next if the Gripen continues to succeed when the others new FMs are not even finished being modelled (imo).
I think it is a grave mistake for any of us in the community to submit reports to cut down the performance and make it EASIER for GJ to do it.
Anyway, I am done rambling. @Godvana, again I apologize over our spat.
1 Like
The only thing they’ve openly admitted to nerfing for balance reasons is multipath and reload rates for tanks afaik
For FM’s and weapons they’ll put off reports that aren’t a priority but ultimately not totally up to the missile and FM devs… they don’t make the decisions as to what they’re allowed to change.
2 Likes
Bro what are you talking about, here…
I do not make stuff up. I keep it real. Even the dev concedes that the Aim7 has an autopilot. (like I have been saying the entire time).
The current nerfed state of the Aim7 Platform & Allied variants: A balance decision way back..
It is time to petition for the Aim7/Skyflash/Aside & Super5 performance to be unlocked a little bit instead of nerfing fighters. There are other models we are privy to that are held back for balance at the time they were implemented.
I think we should kindly remind the devs about them instead of begging for nerfs and new missiles. IMO we do not need active missiles yet. There are so many great things the current missile variants are capable of and other variants. Even the R27 has other unexplored variants.
1 Like
I feel its only broken because Western SARHs and radars are still held back in the same way as first implemented. Dev is well aware they have autopilot features. But every business quarter they a tasked and pressured with pumping out new exciting content and I believe it’s easy to forget these things. That it’s up to us to remind them.
Instead of a never-ending plea for new and new missiles.
1 Like