Yes talked to some people bout that today.
Also had some DMs from the Tech mod who talked with the Devs about the report.
Was there any good news or is it being ignored more?
They apparently still seem interested. They just still wont accept that the Harrier can go faster than .91 Mach and that is can sustain 5G turn at .95 Mach (that’s legit only 4 degrees AOA)
3 Likes
Something really dumb that kinda bugs me with the Legacy and early Sea Harriers: Gaijin didn’t give any of them the ability to remove their twin ADEN pods, when they had that capability IRL. I know it’d probably be stupid, but it would at least be nice to have in-game…
2 Likes
Every harrier could do that IRL actually. Also I want the drop tanks for sim.
New documents have also led me to believe that the Harrier 2 and 1 underperform. The Harrier Gr.5 was said to sustain 13 degrees a second with full internal fuel. The Harrier 1 V-N diagram was performed with gun pods and 2 missiles so it would only be logical if the E-M diagram was made with the same spec.
2 Likes
Yep, exactly
Honestly, aside from correcting performance and making the gunpods removable, my only two other complaints with the Legacy Harriers are incorrect cockpits for most, and a few lacking the ALE-37 CMs pod.
If all of that got fixed, then I’d be completely satisfied with the Harriers, and wouldn’t ask Gaijin to add anything else for them
One day maybe. My wish list is Sea Harrier with correct performance and HUD.
1 Like
Fix the damn harrier gayjinxxxxx
4 Likes
I did some testing in comparison with a NATO document I have (claiming a time to climb of 142 seconds to 40k feet)
I tested a clean Gr1 with minimum fuel capacity in a few different climb profiles. The fastest climb to 40k was 3 minutes.
That’s 30 seconds to slow.
1 Like
What VIFF should do. Compared with what it does in game. IRL as seen in the historic footage the harrier can go from cruising in level flight to flying 180 in the opposite direction in 2-3 seconds. In game to perform the same maneuver at similar (guessed similar) airspeed is a whole 10+ seconds.
3 Likes
Welp, I’m going to wish you luck, I suspect I may not be around much longer as they dont like my response…
What happened lol
My response about growing… got community standard flagged… then my edited version go flagged
Lol just be more careful.
Am trying… didnt think either was that bad tbh…
Just how it is.
any news on this front on dev interest or did they just drop out and shrug everything?
3 Likes
They just dropped it. Have been talking to a techmod though and we could make a bug report about thrust and time to climb as it takes over a minute longer to climb to any altitude than it should. IRL according to an actual Shar pilot it only took 7.3 minutes to reach flight level 35k from breaks release.
In game that same test from breaks release to 35K with Max thrust took over 8 Min 40 seconds. 1 Min 10 seconds longer than it should. Keep in mind 7.30 was there average.
So the Shar can actually accelerate flying straight up yet in game it can not due to the artificial thrust loss.
Climbs are based off of acceleration to 400 knots than start climb until achieving .8 Mach than you must maintain .8 Mach up to cruise altitude.
1 Like
Goodness gracious,
when you see the comparison it becomes even more silly.
Also noticing that even at slow speed with that massive pegasus thrust and nozzles pointed in the slightly forwards position, it does nothing to push the plane in the direction of the thrust vector or even effectively slow the plane down. You can see in the footage the harriers accelerating in the direction of the thrust vector (vertically relative to the plane), not just forwards.
You’re also pulling down towards the ground meaning you should have the thrust, control surfaces AND gravity all helping point you nose towards the ground and yet it still feels like a struggle. I’ve noticed this a lot flying this in simulator; the thrust vector does almost nothing when used with hard pitch inputs until you get to almost zero airspeed and stall out. Slowing down with nozzles in the slightly forward position also feels relatively ineffective, and comparable to just an ordinary airbrake until you get down to a low enough airspeed that you can stall the plane.
Lastly I’m sorry for the closed bug report. It’s insane to me that even with all the evidence right in front of them they consider mach 0.91 to be the maximum achievable speed with such a beast of an engine. They’re incredulous the plane would have “insane” thrust characteristics to achieve what multiple documents in fornt of them say it can achieve, while also talking about a plane that can vertically take off with a greater than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio from a single engine.
Hope they pass the time to climb/thrust bug report, but I have a feeling they’ll push back on this since they’ve just been saying they think the documentation is wrong? Also surely fixing that would also have a significant impact on the planes manoeuvering characteristics as well?
Anyway good luck, I’m still following this with keen interest as the Harrier is a big favourite of mine.
Cheers,
Sebdspy
8 Likes