the source was accepted
developers deemed it to be correct, feel free to prove them wrong and if you can’t then too bad.
Just because source is accepted doesnt mean its automatically accepted as truth.
For example Abrams Spall Liners bug report was also accepted before it got rejected, safe to say this proves nothing.
Which brings us back to my first comment.
1 Like
oh no, something that happens to 0.1% reports!
until you have actually proven yourself by messaging a suggestion mod and gotten the thing rejected, it will stand up as valid regardless of what you say
dont flood this place, this is how it is and you have to accept it
Actually happens quite common, you just dont know how reporting works.
You’re the one who claiming Gripen is overperforming therefore burden of proof is on you.
And as i’ve Said before accepted bug reports doesnt mean anything, now if you dont have anything other than throwing a random report to this thread i suggest stop wasting my time and derailing this thread.
2 Likes
the burden of proof was already done by another person in the bug report
until you can disprove it, it will stand on
this is a fact. dont bother commenting more about me having to “prove” something or that there is “corruption” and this and that
Does anyone here actually have the declassified British MOD report? If such a significant change to an aircraft is going to be made, I’d hope the community at least gets access to the information and sources cited. Especially when the issue report currently relies solely one one source.
you can ask the person who made the bug report, however they did the work with finding a source and they only need it to share it with the devs and not others for their joy of reading
You’re just talking empty.
Report was accepted to be reviewed, wasnt accepted for implementation, if you cant notice the difference then stop wasting my time.
It seems like only reason you’re claiming JAS39 is overperforming due to you’re bein British main and you wanted to see EFT bein best Delta Canard in any section.
1 Like
again, you talked as if you have something to disprove, feel free to do it by messaging a suggestions moderator or dont bother talking
this kind of trash talk is really useless on the forum
Go back to your cave where you can cope buddy.
You bring nothing to table and cant even understand the difference between “accepted for review” and “accepted for fix”.
1 Like
1 Like
kfir c10 does the same.
I dont think they do.
It seems both Rafale and Gripen report is based on single British Mod documents that proved to be not trusted.
British Documents about Rafale and HOT-2 missiles proves that Britian tends to have a habit of underestimating other nations equipments.
I’d be interested in seeing it so as to see as whether or not its an actually detailed and reliable source or not. This isn’t the only time the Gripen’s sustained turn rate has been debated and I’m wondering why this report hasn’t been used before.
MLD, yes. F-14, not anymore (infact probably underperforming).
I was thinking the same thing.
Its like certain British Mains waited until they got their hands on EFT and decided to try to nerf the Gripen based on single MOD document.
4 Likes
21 degrees STR is accurate to real life. You have to factor in that the F-14 has a great amount of power behind it and some of the best lift of any modern fighter. But that’s not the main factor. You have to factor in flaps too. Combat (Maneuvering) and Landing (Full) flaps have a great effect on these jets because the flaps (very basically) act like a maneuverability multiplier, so when you already have a big base value, flaps help a lot more.
Very convenient. I have never heard of the F-16s being limited to being unable to use their main dogfighting tactic. Could you elaborate? Because there’s video evidence of the F-14 outrating the F-16.
It was overperforming during the Danger Zone dev server, and I think @MiG_23M reported it as such. Based on real life, it doesn’t seem like it’s overperforming in the dogfight, but most likely underperforming (not so much the STR, but the max AoA is worse than IRL and the damaged FM is simply ridiculous). But I agree with the radar being gimped. I don’t know why it’s so nerfed.
This has been explained to you before and you still try to spread a false native please stop dragging peoples name though the mud
Hey @Flame2512 , would we be able to see the declassified MOD report you mentioned in this bug report relating to the Gripen’s sustained turn rate? Community Bug Reporting System
Sorry for the ping, I just can’t manage to find the MOD report myself, only references to the ESR-D mentioned in your post.
Explained by who? The person who made that report based on single British MOD document?
Seems to me you guys get easily offended when people debunk your claims, Rafale and HOT-2 discussion are perfect example for this.
British Mains tends to always amaze me, not in good way tho.
1 Like