Blue Vixen (PS-05A) has had its elevation limits corrected.
11 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
Any Gripen reports of mine labeled not a bug are rather combined into one of these two reports;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WRSLHA5Nowjl
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lnUaYuLUn8Dh
We have been waiting for them to add the MAWS to the harrier for 1.5 years and they only added it when we complained that the F111 got their one, but they then just copy and pasted the F111 MAWS so we are still waiting for a fix for that.
We are still also waiting for a fix to the Tornado F3 slat deployment for over a year now… which won’t be fixed until gaijin redesign how flaps and slats work in the game.
Separation of flares and chaff is also a major issue that has plagued UK aircraft for years and we are still waiting for a fix for that.
The Challenger 2 “fix” was supposed to happen and they have still ignored blatant evidence that shows the tank should be better protected in the mantles area, with some areas able to be penetrated by 30mm cannons frontally.
And this is all information that is readily available…
There’s no end to the list of issues that all nations have, it’s been reported.
We all know the gripen isn’t accurately modeled and there is bugger all we can do about it, so stop complaining and deal with it like the rest of us.
That said, of and when the detailed specification and performance information becomes available, I’m sure a report will go up and the devs will be able to accurately tune the flight model to that information at some point when they eventually bother to get around to it.
Right now you are making a lot of assumptions and speculations with no actual evidence to back it up.
2 Likes
This is actually somewhat relevant, but not an excuse. We need to hold them accountable for not fixing all of these issues especially as more modern aircraft come to the game. The more unstable designs they add… the more flight models that need entirely redone when they eventually fix their physics engine and instructor.
Again, there is no excuse for them being lazy about these things. One of these does not excuse the other… you know… two wrongs don’t make a right.
You have come to accept that things won’t be fixed and point to other unsolved issues as though that shows it is acceptable?
Ofcourse it’s not acceptable, but what is anyone here going to be able to do with anecdotal evidence when problems that are officially documented and acknowledged with the proper required documentation are still not being fixed.
We aren’t going to stop reporting issues when we have the proper evidence and documentation, and we are still trying to get regular updates on such issues as they progress.
But the crux of the issue with your reports is that there are still so many assumptions about the true performance characteristics of the aircraft that there is little point in trying make changes to something that isn’t accurate when the result is still going to be just as inaccurate but in a different way.
What we have can be considered “good enough” until such a time that more accurate and reliable information comes our way.
3 Likes
I wonder how much the devs themselves even care about this intrinsic flight-model stuff, we’re yelling at them calling this stuff “unacceptable” like they’re on trial… Maybe they’re just regular people holding down a 9-5 with no expectation of ‘perfection’ in this niche of unstable designs in this rather huge video game…
The sources used are primary and not anecdotal.
Except y’all shut anyone down when discussion of the FM takes place because you’re afraid of the impending nerf. No one shuts down discussion that would result in buffs. Certainly not you.
They could literally model it as shown in the primary source documents and then extrapolate anything missing from there. It’s hardly anecdotal. It is quite complete, and better sourced than the F-5E which is going off the assumptions of some tertiary source.
Except that they claim they are going to fix it and it is then put off. We find it important, they make it sound like it is a priority… and then years pass. They could just tell us it isn’t a priority.
2 Likes
It’s anecdotal because it is based off vidoes, people’s experience and retelling of the information. The SAAB “Sources” are anecdotal by definition because they are demonstrations that can be limited or changed to give a certain perception.
The things you asked for cannot be changed without knowing the full flight envelope AOA. Just arbitrarily throwing out the maximum AOA doesn’t help anybody understand how the plane actually performs.
Again, we not the current iteration is not accurate, and making radical changes to meet a single aspect of the planes performance will throw all the balance out the window, making the flight model be even more inaccurate as a whole.
Out of everyone, those who post sources and evidence for British vehicles and aircraft want them to perform accurately more so than anyone else in the community and I am all for it. Case in point with the lightning F6.
There was so much propaganda around the performance of the aircraft that led most people to believe it was a UFO, then when the detailed specifications were declassified the majority of people on the old forums accepted it without question.
Most of us objectively argued against the use of still classified materials that if used could have resulted I a buff.
I have observed people on other forums actively refusing to release technical documentation because they feared it would result in nerfs to their vehicles.
We want things to be accurate and we don’t want gaijin to waste time making changes that would have to be changed again because its still all wrong.
2 Likes
The video looks slowed down ;)
Reminds me of someone posting the video of the challengerb2 turret rotation speed but it was sped up by a decent amount.
1 Like
Except we already had discussions, thousands of posts of discussions. It led nowhere and I think what @Celestia is trying to get at is just that…
If you have a new piece of evidence or a source then sure spark some discussion, but we’ve already extensively discussed the existing evidence and it led nowhere except a mega toxic environment.
In my opinion there doesn’t exist enough evidence right now for the whole “SEP” debacle, I don’t consider those charts usable (you also never got back to me regarding this in dm) and when it comes to the whole “unstable” design things, we already have several bug reports open regarding it, the devs have acknowledged it. And if that gets fixed the whole “SEP” thing gets fixed along with it. So I’m not mega concerned regarding it right now. F16’s also seem to put up a good fight to the Gripen now in dogfights, for what it’s worth it’s advantage to the F16 very similar to how a Gripen pilot explained to me it would be. (similar, but better at holding energy (rough translation)). Of course, this is not a usable source so I’m not pushing it.
There’s also other things I’ve found in my books which would be considered buffs to the Gripen, for example the stall speed, roll rate - but they would be inherently fixed with your unstable reports so I’m not pushing that either. Same with a source I found regarding acceleration. The root of the problems are reported already.
3 Likes