They do, I believe Andre Brännström mentioned this in some podcast.
Gripen is held to the same standard as all other top tier aircraft in the game with the 1.5x multiplier and all that, you have a couple hundred reports on your hands if you are seriously humouring this… lol
Well, this is a pretty common mount.
The F-16 wing also has attachment points
Dont want to be against you, but that is a Dev server, things there are unfinnished and placeholders.
It had to be fixed via reports regardless. It was erroneous, it was halfway corrected… it is still erroneous. The entire FM needs redone from the ground up.
You can book this simulator for like $40, I’ve been considering driving there. Very cool museum.
Close to Stockholm I actually flew a Viggen simulator which was made from a real decommissioned fuselage/cockpit. Had a blast, you got to wear a G-suit which inflated when you pulled G’s which was super immersive. I’m surprised more people with simulators aren’t considering G-suits
Didn’t even realise it was a museum exhibit haha, even less credible for true maximum performance then.
Would be even cooler if they could put it in a centrifuge to simulate the G’s.
Still utterly awesome.
go full real experience and knock you out for a tenner hahaha
Steady Steady, we might have told you it is a simulation, but If you fail that landing it will be your last.
fine by me, actually done a landing before. my instructor (Cessna 152) did comment on how… much vertical speed I had going into it, but what can I say, I’ve always been a fan of carrier aviation.
Blue Vixen (PS-05A) has had its elevation limits corrected.
And it will be fixed, as soon as reliable information becomes more readily and legally available.
In the meantime the devs have tuned the aircraft to one that performs how they expect it to based off the information that is available right now while also making it competitive as a top tier aircraft for multiple nations that currently lack a direct competitor.
No, they have not. They fully admitted that it is incorrectly configured currently so as not to brick the mouse aim instructor. It should be statically unstable, and as such the flight model is entirely erroneous as it sits currently.
The point flew over you head didn’t it
You need to resist the urge to post inflammatory / spam. It’s not useful to the thread in the slightest. We must not sit here and pretend the flight model will be corrected if they are actively ignoring even small fixes or partial fixes like they have already done for other FM’s such as F-16, Mirage 2000, Su-27, MiG-29.
He’s right.
The point is to drop it because you lack the evidence to show what it’s true performance is, and cannot force the devs to reinvent the game engine physics at a whim for a single aircraft.
The former will likely never make an appearance is the lifetime of wathunder and the latter will likely never make an appearance until they introduce a Russian aircraft that requires it, and even then will still go unfixed until several months later.
The in-game model does not perform with reduced static margin as described by Saab. Clearly, the AoA limits are wrong. The low speed stall performance is wrong. Max pitch with stick in full real results in a steady sustained turn rather than reaching point of stall.
None of this is accurate, it is underperforming with AoA and instant turn rate by quite a large margin due to this. I suppose had you known I was talking about a potential buff your tune would have been different. There is no sense “dropping” the discussion of the technical data and performance of the fighter… in the thread explicitly about this.
There already exists Russian aircraft that require these changes to fix, your nonsense about them not wanting to fix something until Russia requires it is what should be dropped. The flight model is erroneous, reports are still open and we are awaiting a fix.
and do you have info on this or are you just saying it wrong based on nothing
It has been provided in my report.
in which one that is labelled not a bug