Thats the point, the carrier was far from fully operational. As for the A4s, they had been in service for years and were being replaced by the SUE at the time. They were practically retired, pulled out of some basement, and sent back into service.
Exactly but your main hypothesis is that the aircraft was much better in real life than it is in the game, and your arguments to support that idea boil down to comparing stats or results in a simple jet vs jet matchup.
Is that literally not the metrics we use to calculate aircraft performance in War Thunder. Hmmm?
Along with various performance charts I have used in the past it is without a doubt very seriously underperforming.
Forget it, mate I’m not going to argue with you over things that are honestly pretty insignificant. You know exactly what I mean, especially regarding the argument with POLYDEUCES you know.
I guess theres no point in dragging this out any further.
Even though its an interesting topic for a healthy discussion, this just isnt the place for it.
I hope I didnt cause any trouble
if I did, I truly apologize. That was never my intention.
Ok, I made this topic to address Gaijins neglect. It is the perfect place.
I really do hope Gaijin fixes the Shars. Best of luck with that 🫶🏻
1 Like
Thank you, so far this dev they have bugged the cockpit and removed the gunsight.
1 Like
There is a place for historical accounts withwise of aircraft performane and that certainly is of value here in the case of the Harrier. Such as the fact that many pilots report that VIFFing would force the nose up, but in game it does almost nothing.
But a lot of OPs reports and even a few of my own are based in primary sources such tactics manuals and expert testemonials on certain aspects. Such as the sooty exhaust and IR signature issues. common sense also helps a bit here too, though Gaijin doesnt accept that as a source.
There will be aspects of the Harriers performance that will never be modeled right, either due to lack of sources or due to game limitations but there is a lot they could address in 5 minutes if they wanted to but its been years for some of these issues are they have barely given the Harrier. Shar especially, a second glance. Its a real shame
Im actually a little frustrated about this dev cycle all they did was bug the Shar and remove its gunsight. Like what kind of fix is that.
We actually do have all of the sources needed to fully model what VIFF should do. I have a full range of accelerometer readings at different speeds, flap positions, and nozzle positions.
FM stuff takes time. So im not surprised we’ve seen nothing move on that front.
But the fact that the HUD has yet to be “finished” after starting it last major is deeply annoying. Let alone the other minor things like sooty exhaust
Yes the HUD is very annoying as well, however Gunjob seemed to have missed some aspects of it when it was initially reported.
He said he reported various issues with it so I was expecting to see those addressed this major.
The HUD we have now is just the Gr.3 HUD playing dress up basically.
Im not sure Id go quite that far, but there is certainly several critical parts that they just seem to have forgotten about
It uses the same everything, even the compass is the Gr.3 HUD the Shar compass is a whole different size and shape
This is what It should actually look like in the VSTOL mode that in game is gear down.
Absolutely I agree with you.
The accounts of the pilots should, in fact, be the most important testimonies when analyzing a vehicles performance.
Unfortunately for Gaijin, thats not how it works. A vehicle manual is 100% theoretical; a pilots experience is 100% real.
Spoiler
In the earlier posts, I wasnt specifically referring to this point. But honestly, I dont think theres much point in clarifying it now.
1 Like
Vehicle manuals are usually made with meticulously tested data and/or very detailed computer simulations and well as actual specs from the manufacturers of all the different systems
Theoretical is not really true
Well, its normal to hear pilots talk about how long it takes to truly get to know their aircraft
Usually, theres a dark area between the manufacturers data and the real safe limits of the plane, and thats exactly the space pilots love to explore.
There can be exceptions. For example:
Also, pilots can and will often squeeze more out of the airframe than they may have done in that testing. I think a number of RAF manuals tend to low-ball capabilities of aircraft quite a bit and can be quite conservative either due to safety margins or due to peace-time airframe endurance. But suffice to say, in combat, those are usually ignored
Yeah they do tend to only really test typical combat conditions but that is what you generally see in war thunder after all.
Stuff like F-111 was known to go much faster than thought, USAF and maybe USN low-ball stuff but it’s what they use in-game as a standard so I don’t really mind it too much
1 Like
Eh… I wouldnt mind if it was universal, but there are exceptions. Like the Mig-21BiS uses combat thrust figures for its AB unlike every other jet that ues standard AB figures not combat thrust.
Also not all manuals are made equal to the same margins. I wouldnt be surprised if Britain’s slightly lack luster performance on a number of aircraft was entirely the MoDs fault and that they werent quite so bad IRL. (Though I also blame Gaijin modeling equally for that too)
1 Like
I’d assume US/UK manuals would be to similar standards given the very close defense ties throughout the cold war. But the MiG is definitely interesting. Don’t think it causes any issues but it should be brought in line unless they bump up other jets to combat rating