Nah, even radar reports on radar behavior have to be split from eachother because you cannot focus too much on different radar behaviors. So I dont see how thrust and drag would be in the same report especially since they are both counter to eachother.
Also FM reports get fixed pretty fast, MiG-29 was fixed within a month and that was because the original report was botched and the second one just wasnt passed for a very long time. Hell, if I had the acceleration sources I’d be happy to report it as soon as it became wrong.
Partly why I bothered to do the report because of the thrust is fixed and the acceleration is wrong enough - they’ll adjust it. Right now they find it acceptable…
Well if it currently needs roughly 15-20% more thrust at Mach 0.8 to still accelerate roughly 15% slower than it should then you cn imagine how terribly wrong the drag must be.
That also means that while the energy retention in a turn at that speed would suffer a bit, it would also mean that below that speed it would be better.
And I don’t think we necessarily need more energy retention at trans or supersonic speeds in the Gripen. It hardly slows down as is in that speed range which honestly makes it harder to get into a dogfight with a chasing plane since you need to engage your airbrakes to effectively slow down enough to get into a knife fight.
He does not have to fix what’s not broken. That is called logic. How about you & your Papi do not break it in the first place? He will not have to report anything after the fact.
If you screw up the model it’s YOUR responsibility to report the other issues generate as result.
These dudes @DracoMindC and @MiG_23M are literally advocating nerfing a jet because they are bored and are simply saying “bro, just report the other issues that come up as result of our nerfs”.
Nah, you screw up the model, you are responsible for fixing all issues that come as result. The hell they think this is?
its accurate to the manuals, sorry if it did not meet your expectations
incredible strawman, though doesnt really work when I even offered to report acceleration if provided sources that were previously mentioned. I do not care whether the thrust report gets passed either way, I only advocated for rate to be reduced from its comical overperformance before which was already implemented.
These dudes buy jets just to play 10 games and swear their experts on what it needs and what it does not need because they flew circles in a test flight.
Its comical.
Besides the point boy, you and daddy Mig nerf models. It’s up to you to report the issues that come as result. I understand this is a newfound hobby instead of actually playing the game. There is a responsibility you have when you change models.
You have no right to tell the community “just report what we end up breaking.”
never did that lol, once again you have not read anything I’ve said its actually really bizarre. Infact for the MiG-29 I had the first report out on its turnrate underperforming, unfortunately back then I wasn’t as familiar with fm bug reporting as I am now after the whole Su-27 thing, but do note I do not infact “break things and make others fix them” thats just something you imagined in your head
crazy, however I then said I would be happy to be the one to make that report so I dont see how this is a gotcha when I know what I think and believe more than you do lmao
Well, we know it is false because NAVAIR and QNEP documentation show the actual thrust curves… maybe it was uninstalled thrust without temperature considerations or intake losses for the NASA chart? @Flame2512 would you mind linking the full report? Could be something useful for the report in there still.
