Out of curiosity, do we know vertical coverage of the Gripen C RWR?
Gripen is getting its MFDs
3 Likes
Siiick! shame I never use it lmao
Hope we will get more options than just the light mode
1 Like
Does it show any datalink stuff or only targets on the radar?
that one shows radar related stuff only, missile dl too. It could be displayed over the map, and it should be on the right
The middle screen shows tactical map with tactical datalink
and the left one shows RWR and flight control stuff
example of a cockpit
2 Likes
At this point most of what needs fixing in terms of FM requires an entire overhaul of the FM system (or perhaps even the game engine).
I really hope that is a plan they have for a relative near future, at least before they add more modern jets that are currently impossible to model correctly with current systems.
1 Like
I hope they do some overhauls as well, not a single one of the true gen4 fighters has a proper FM currently because of the game engine limitations… Even so the Gripen and F-16 is arbitrarily benefiting from this where they have forced the MiG-29 and Su-27 to suffer on a double standard.
2 Likes
i mean, its not really a double standard in the strict sense of the word, if they can’t fix the FM unless a major overhaul is done.
1 Like
I highly doubt for one reason, and it’s the AIM-7’s extreme mass and size. But why not add the IRIS-T that’s on the wingtip too 😏
Bro is four paraller universe behind.
1 Like
So it’s been discussed that it is possible?
Currently BOL supports the AIM-120, and Sky flash really isn’t that far of in size/weight.
1 Like
10/4
Now I’m curious why the JA-37D doesn’t have BOL on its RB-71’s, now that I think of it, iirc, they load out manual only states that it has BOL on the outboard like in game.
i’ll have a goosey gander at my bol sources and see what i can find you
They stated clearly that the decision to allow the F-16 to do 360 degree cartwheels and recover in 1/4 of a turn instead of modeling it with some level of wing rock or other instabilities like the MiG-29 was an arbitrary decision. They could model it like the MiG-23 or MiG-29 where AoA beyond ~26 - 30 degrees results in difficulty controlling the aircraft. This would be so much more realistic and beneficial towards fairness.
Then there is the Gripen, which has practically no instabilities and can maintain full pitch without concern for stalling or departure… completely carefree flight characteristics not caused by fly-by-wire, but the lack of modeling proper departure symptoms by the developers. They admitted to modeling it as a statically stable aircraft until the game engine can handle unstable designs - but did not fully model the FM in departure conditions.
Anyhow, the issue also applies to the J-10 and JF-17 now. It’s not really a blue vs red thing anymore they just aren’t modeling modern fighters very well.
3 Likes
I don’t know enough about the mig’s or the F-16 to have an opinion there.
But you are very much underestimating the FBW of Gripen. It literally flies the plane for you and stops before the edge cases of control so that you never lose control of the aircraft.
This video sums it up quite well:
~30deg AoA at 180km/h. Edit: correction 22 degrees, not 30.
announcer says “You can see the canards working to keep the aircraft stable, but the pilot has no idea of which canard is doing what, its all the planes doing. The pilot just tells the plane what he wants it to do and the plane takes the best course of action to achieve it to the best of its abilities.”
So the FBW doesn’t allow it to lose control or stall. if the pilot in that video pulls back harder on the stick nothing would happen, the FBW would ignore the extra input and only deliver a stable condition.
1 Like
Oh no. Please not again. I beg not again.
TLDR:
Gripen specifically is modeled as stable in the game when its not IRL, so there are some drag/lift coefficients that wont be correct due to the canards inaccurate movements.
IRL when flying straight the canards often have to point down to make the plane not turn, and when turning a bit they are mostly straight and mostly used to keep the aircraft stable but let the instability turn the plane for it. so they aren’t really angled upwards that often IRL as they are in game.
I am aware of this, but the devs stated that the Gripen is not modeled as unstable and the fly-by-wire limits only exist for these types of aircraft in dampening SAS mode at the moment. Without dampening and in full real you can pull the stick as much as you want and at no point does the aircraft exhibit departure symptoms that can be expected when an aircraft is on the verge of stalling such as asymmetrical yaw or wing rock.
I understand this, that is not what I was discussing. There are specific lines of code in-game that are not related to turn rates, drag, or lift coefficients and instead dictate the departure and post-stall behavior of the aircraft.
In regards to the MiG-29, the post-stall recovery was improved without altering the flight model in any other manner;
These lines of code are left so conservatively for the F-16 and the Gripen, J-10, JF-17, and other new gen4 fighters that they can do cartoon style cartwheels never seen before on non thrust vectoring airframes and recover faster than if they did have thrust vectoring. It’s quite absurd.
The Gripen imo has the worst FM in this regard as nothing you do can make it truly stall or depart from controlled flight. If you manually force it into a spin (quite difficult task), it is possible to recover from just 500m in most cases.
Here is an example of a situation that should not be recoverable for an F-16, instead they are able to utilize nearly 2x the AoA allowable in real world conditions without departure and get away with it because there are no signs of departure, period.
The same goes for the Gripen currently and it’s just a few lines of code that affect these parameters.