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
Also loadout options, like L26 for the Chally DS.
2 Likes
Chaff is overperforming
1 Like
Not saying its not, its just ER is the ONLY fox1 that can somewhat reliably go through it.
Not to mention latest changes of PD radars where they tune down their filters in uplook and get destroyed by chaff in slight notch is just wrong… these things should employ SW solutions to filter out chaff on its own, already APQ-120 was doing that by simply placing range gate at the front of plane and pretty much rejecting chaff unless closure rate was really low. Modern stuff from late 70 and 80s simply rejects chaff by rejecting objects with high G decceleration. Like chaff, which loses all momentum in split second.
3 Likes
That paragraph is not saying they will need the Gripen FM for balance reasons. It is saying that the FM was recently changed (due to bug reports) so they will see what effect that has on its statistics.
1 Like
“As for the Gripens, their FMs have been revised and we’ll monitor their effectiveness after these changes.”
They will monitor the Gripens FM and how effective it is after the recent FM changes.
Its clear to me they will monitor and make moves based on performance. Not community reports.
2 Likes
As always, the devs have been… overly vague in their statements and it has left the entire community on edge.
There is a lot of conern the “Challenger 2 fixes” are going to be only token changes and the fixes that have been needed for the past 2 years arent going to happen for “reasons”
2 Likes
I agree and I think in the meantime we should just let them do what they will do. Not make it easy for them to nerf the thing by submitting reports it should be nerfed.
Players are going to play it. I say enjoy it. But we should not give them more reason to nerf it because Junior Game Developers that love spamming reports only want to earn brownie points with them.
We have underperforming radars etc of the new jets lets work on buffing them first. Thats all I am saying.
Yep, like I said above. We just need to continue to challenge every report, every change. Make sure sources are correct (something like a Gripen A data being used to nerf the Gripen C for example, im sure someone has tried it.)
If something does actually need changing then so be it. But until then, every nerf should be challenged as much as possible. In the long run, it will only make changes more accurate, by ensuring multiple, good quality sources are used.
2 Likes
I am with you brother.
1 Like
@MiG_23M Now here’s another proof. According to Figure 34 from https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1991-3195
The flight tested Cm-alpha derivative (presumably at low alpha), an direct indication of static margin, turned from unstable to stable as mach number increases, as the aerodynamic center shifts backward at transonic speeds. This is a direct contradiction of what the dev has said about the static margin.
@TrickZZter @Metrallaroja I think the issue should be reopened.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uBilvdSHIVFx
3 Likes
Additionally, the thrust is overperforming. Currently it peaks at over 23,800 lb-f thrust at mach 1.1 or so.
The GE-402 model of the engine peaks at ~19,340 lb-f… which makes improvements over the RM12 used in the Gripen (higher temp tolerance, the limiting factor for thrust on the F404). This is a 23% increase in available installed thrust over what is realistic for the engine.
The F404 engine curve should drop after 0.8 mach similar to this chart; source
Did the developer really just ask you @MiG_23M please stop with the spamming any canard reports about the JAS39?
Not only are you spamming reports. You are misrepresenting the facts and trying to get over on them.
You really want to nerf this jet huh?
Now the thrust? You gave up on the Canards, now you are going to try to get them to with the thrust?
4 Likes
Why is Ziggy’s coment flagged lol. thats a quite clear abuse of the flagging system.
3 Likes