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
Maybe. But every chance the MoD were being perdantic as usual
There is another directly claim of super high AOA lol.
Yes I think after his enquiry NASA and RAE got together and did a lot of testing.
1 Like
From my research the L21A1 had a mass procurement contract inked and fulfilled by Rheinmetall, but any press coverage of it disappears after 2007. You would have to ask British servicemen about it.
Interesting, could just be a classified munition.
Could you provide sources for all of your claims please? Thanks
He’s been banned for a week for accidentally posting a classified doc, so I’ll try to answer on his behalf.
IR stuff (point 5) you can read my breakdown here:
But also from a purely in-game perspective. How Gaijin models heat signatures screws the Harriers as its all based on thrust and the Harrier has a lot of thrust, and gains more thrust at lower airspeeds. At a bare minimum. It should be given an IR signature equal to that of any other sub-sonic aircraft in game, like the Buc or Hunter. Instead its hotter than many Afterburning engines. and at an airspeed of about 420kts, its the hottest aircraft in game (impossible to flare a long ranged (3km) R-60M)
Sooty exhaust (point 3) is actually my bug report
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nL08Lex7fUDv
(OP did give me another primary source for it too, but was told by Gunjob that what I had so far was more than enough and so wasnt added to the report)
The other 3 points I dont have primary sources on hand, but its incredibly hard to report because the sources often used drop tanks and no canons. A config not possible in game. So its hard to do a direct comparison to the sources in game. But it is more than likely the performance is wrong.
he has a number of reports in but none have been passed yet (but is/was working quite closely with gunjob, so I have no idea what may or may not have been passed internally) :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PKQ9EkFkhaoz
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0Og5A3B8DcWb
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/0pjyC4bjkc9h
and he has other threads for covering parts of it like:
But overall its a tricky aircraft for them to model withwise to the VIFF and proabbly will never be right, but there are some relatively basic things like VIFF should bunt the nose up quite hard. But in game it does almost nothing. On a basic level. Harrier 1s should turn like the Harrier 2s do and the Harrier 2s should turn better still.