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.
It’s not even close to 30 degrees and 180 km/h
this 30 AoA
uhm… no?
image
Or have i fundamentally misunderstood how to measure AoA?
Isn’t it the nose’s deviation (in degrees) from direction of travel?
So the Gripen in that video, traveling horizontally and not sinking or climbing would have the same angle of attack as it would have angle relative to ground (as direction of travel is parallel to the ground)
Likely a wiring limitations on the hard point and less so a weight issue or issue mounting on the Skyflash.
Fairly certain there was a source and a bug report in for Skyflash+BOL on the Gripen. In fact does the Gripen A have BOL+Skyflash?
22 AoA
1 Like
Edit, measured wrong first time, changed image:
1 Like
you would have placed a protractor behind the plane 10 meters away, it would have been 50 degrees at all
The flight vector should be placed on the center of mass, not the tail
I completely measured wrong, i was already in the process of fixing it when you messaged. image changed.
you’re correct, its closer to 22.
but the video you sent is way past 30 deg.
Edit:
Grippen has a limit like 24-26 degrees AoA,
Yes, now that you say it i remember.
But my point still stands, the FBW wont give more than what the plane can do.
It’s probably modeled wrong in game due to them having to model that function while also having a stable instead of unstable aircraft. Thus making it to stable in situations it shouldn’t be.
1 Like
Gripen is losing altitude in the entrance of the maneuver, maintaining speed at loss of altitude. AoA initially is ~35 degrees from picture view or closer to 30 degrees from the actual ground and gets lower as video goes on and he begins to pull out of the maneuver.
It is not a consistent low speed AoA pass, it just appears to be on video.
There is no need for this, they can model departure symptoms for the fully stable Kfir Canard, Mirage 2000, even on the MiG-29 and Su-27 departure symptoms are modeled even with the aircraft acting unstable in the correct conditions. They are not modeled at all for the F-16, Gripen, J-10, etc.
There simply is no excuse for it, modifying the flight model files for user missions with the CDK results in correctly performing aircraft without drawbacks and without bricking mouse aim instructor. These are made up excuses from the devs for seemingly no reason.
1 Like
Their entire FM is stretched over a World War I biplane. We need a completely different FM for 4th generation aircraft
1 Like
vertical display is now reversed, it does up when the radar beam goes down
bonus screenshot, I AM THE RADAR MAN, SEEER OR ALL
[DEV] Gripen C vertical radar display incorrect behavior
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/oibBPScnINOD
1 Like
Nice, i added it not moving, as it should
I know it is Gripen E sim, but they use the same display, and you can see it move over the course of the video
1 Like