jesus screw them… i dont want to play that map period, it sucks D***.
Issues:
- The canards are not used properly due to the incorrect modeling of the negative static stability.
- Roll rate is underperforming.
- All control surfaces currently do not deflect far enough visually.
- All control surfaces in regards to canard or elevons deflect too much or in wrong direction indicating incorrect modeling of the aerodynamics of the aircraft in general
1 Like
What source have you used for this one?
When on the ground the canards are able to be used as an airbrake. That isn’t modeled.
1 Like
This is not used except for extremely short runways, otherwise they are deflected upwards to make the airframe statically stable and allow for easier landing approach.
You can achieve the same thing by applying negative pitch but it currently doesn’t slow the aircraft down that much - which should be fixed if they model the excessive drag these canards bring at high angles of attack. (When instantaneous turn rate will be nerfed in regards to energy retention).
Depends on what role/scenario.
In a dogfight, typhoon wins.
In a QRA role, typhoon wins.
In a BVR, the rafale might hold a slight advantage with a smaller radar cross section, though I think it would depend on the Typhoon, an RAF one with PIRATE might do a lot better than a German typhoon without. But mostly equal
In a ground strike / CAS role, then Rafale carries the bigger weapons load and I think has better range.
But the differences are so minor that it’s better to say they are near enough equal
1 Like
So? It’s useful in war thunder to stop quickly as possible…
You currently can’t get them to pitch down as much as you see them at the end of their video, otherwise I wouldn’t have brought it up.
Both of these issues are already reported and I agree with you here, there is no need for hostility. Just admit when I’m right and be useful towards the discussion otherwise.
I have fireworks ready for the day it happens, don’t you worry.
1 Like
The canards are not used properly due to the incorrect modeling of the negative static stability.
All control surfaces in regards to canard or elevons deflect too much or in wrong direction indicating incorrect modeling of the aerodynamics of the aircraft in general
Can the flight model encompass this kind of behaviour? I know one of your canard trim reports got denied because of how mouse aim works.
Roll rate is underperforming.
I already reported this and got not-a-bug’d.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/XZC0BVQsWCs6
Glad to know it was reported already… would you mind making a suggestion to modify the FM to allow full roll speeds outside of mouse aim? Currently mouse aim can limit AoA, G force, etc surely a roll rate limiter can be put in place?
Sure, I added that to my latest comment but the issue is closed so not sure how much attention it will get.
It can be submitted as a suggestion which requires less strict sources and such than a true bug report
You can do that if you want. Feel free to copy-paste stuff from my report: Community Bug Reporting System
I made one on the incorrect canard behavior
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uBilvdSHIVFx
2 Likes
Nice. The list at the end seems a bit confused though – the canards should deflect down after landing, not up.
Canards deflect up for landing approach to increase stability - improves landing characteristics and then deflects down as airbrake only after nosewheel touchdown.
Limiting SAS mode to an arbitrary G-force has nothing to do with “trim abuse.” You even tried to report the way that trim works in the game and Gaijin rejected it as not being a bug.
-
Trim does not work in SAS Damping mode. Trim does nothing. Trim only works in full manual mode.
-
Setting up controls for trim manipulation in sim is not hard and if someone really wanted to use the trim function they would have to fly in manual mode…where Gripen + other planes can pull beyond their operational G limit.
Yes, I know. Your list says
They should only deflect upward when;
[…]
-For landing, used as airbrake after nose wheel touch down.
Semantically this says that they deflect upward after touchdown.
Yes, to clarify I meant to specify it was used for approach and then changes only after nosewheel touchdown.
I understood but perhaps an extra “…, and then downwards when…” would be helpful.