Stat cards never lie.
They are tested at full fuel tho.
So you have to buff all the stats for your desired fuel load.
Stat cards do lie/can be very incorrect.
Very basic example is the Me 163’s stat card which says a top speed of only 945 km/h top speed at 4.5 km but you can do over 970 km/h (with max fuel) at sea level.
1 Like
Things like “climb rate” I dont know what its based upon, but many aircraft have different climb rates based upon factors like altitude. Early spitfires, like the Mk1a boast a climb rate of 18.7 m/s . Higher than a lot of aircraft, but that climb rate drops off rapidly as you climb.
So its not a “lie” but its a “half truth” in that instance, a high rate of climb doesnt mean you can actually climb all that high, all that fast. Just means at “X” alt you can climb reasonably well.
You also have things like “Max Speed at X Alt” its not wrong, but rarely that helpful, and sometimes doesnt make a lot of sense. Tornado MFG, Tornado ASSTA1 and Tornado IDS (Italy) are all identical airframes. Same engines most importantly. They have 3 different stat cards, displaying different information on all 3, Other than “maybe” some slight differences with fuel loads, they should be identical stat cards,.
What would be good, is to overhaul it, where you could see the stats based upon things like alt and fuel load and adjust the slider to see the results. I think a lot of players would benefit from having information like that available
Making things ‘easier’ for some to see, doesn’t actually help as much as it will end up with a muddling of the stats and the reasons on why they’re used IRL in these terms as well.
Much the same as the turn time misinterpretation being a flat turn not a rolled, and at the cruising speed, at a height, and all those ‘technicalities’ it’s where knowledge and experience come into it.
Whilst it’s a common thing to be confused on, once people have understanding of it (And not just a ‘it’s wrong/broken’ reasoning) it comes to be more accurate than you’d think.
Even further to the point, you get further into it, an d you end up on the Manual Engine Control feathering props, closing radiators and absolutely thrashing everything.
my guy i’ve tried to dive on the spitfire mk9 with a friend on re2005 and the re2005 lost energy slowlier than the spit, we eventually hit the same 550 mark after some time flying straight
You did a test that can’t be recreated (you don’t give a single specification of how the test worked or the speeds achieved), unreliable, not rigorous, and you don’t even have any test results. All in all your comment here is meaningless.
I tested both planes individually twice just to get two completely different sets of test results. I used the test drive with test drive FM tools to reliably spawn the plane at the speed and altitude necessary. I recorded videos of the flights and then saw the exact frames at which different speeds were achieved. And even with fluctuations in the instructor, which make keeping the plane in a perfect straight line difficult, those different sets of test results still corroborate each other.
Unless you can actually make a test that matches or surpasses mine when it comes to how rigorous, reliable and recreatable it is, every word you say is simply meaningless in comparison.
Imagine the people that made LK-99 simply saying it is a room temperature superconductor and not giving any instruction on what it actually was or how to produce it. That is you in this situation.
Here’s something else that is absolutely ridiculous that you’ve said about the Re.2005 (even though you yourself have admitted to never having flown it).
The current Re.2005 outclimbing the Bf 109 K-4 is a completely ridiculous claim, one you do not have any actual test evidence to back up, yet you still say it as fact when in reality the Bf 109 K-4 outclimbs the Re.2005 so badly that it isn’t even a competition.
While you tell people to “stop saying that N plane is bad”, I tell you to stop talking and throwing around misinformation on a plane that you yourself have no idea how it performs.
2 Likes
I do not know a single good player that even slightly relies on the stat card of a plane, precisely because it is inaccurate (like top speed in some cases) or the values are too niche and specific to be useful (turn rate). Most if not all will rely on how the plane feels and flies to decide what to do in the moment.
On a side note, “prop feathering” means that you turn the blades of the prop so as to not create any drag or thrust. It is just a feature that allows for better gliding when on low fuel or with no engine. It has very little, if any, battle applications.
2 Likes
you neither fly some of the planes i “cry about” and just limit yourself to say “rico moment” like the absolute NPC you are.
I have both the Mk 24 and Re 2005. In fact, I have like 150 or so kills in the Re 2005 so I think I’m qualified to debate you in this matter.
They’re also an entire BR apart.
However, I’m intrigued by your thoughts on them?
First off, just because YOU don’t know how they work, and because YOU don’t know anyone who does use them because YOU haven’t asked about them, doesn’t make them negatable…
And as to your ‘side note’ you don’t even know about MEC, so you don’t understand the further detail that comes from that level of control…
So please, start learning and get to understanding because these are STANDARD DETAILS.
Like, seriously… General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon - Wikipedia
Absolutely normal… Speeds and performance are measured at a standard height, at a distinct speed and method, and it is perfectly fine.
You make an extraordinary amount of assumptions in your horribly aggressive reply.
I said that most good players don’t rely on the stat card of a plane precisely because I have asked and I know it to be true.
As for it being negatable, the stat card for a plane can be entirely correct but that doesn’t change the fact that it will still be displaying niche and very specific details that overall aren’t exceedingly useful. “Turn time” and “Rate of climb” will change drastically depending on the altitude and fuel of the aircraft, and again, will only apply to an aircraft in those specific conditions. RazerVon said that these values are for an aircraft with full fuel which, if true, makes them even less useful as games in ARB don’t go past 25 minutes so fuel loads that go significantly above this value are of very questionable use.
And again, as I have mentioned, there is just the chance that the stat card is outright incorrect, which I will demonstrate using the Me 163 B, in much more detail than before.
Me 163 B performance
Here is the stat card for my fully spaded Me 163 B. Again, it says 955 km/h at 4500 meters is the top speed of the plane.
However at 200 meters (so as to avoid the buildings) I achieved 967 km/h with a maximum fuel load.
And at 4500 meters, 981 km/h.
The max speed of the Me 163 only increases with altitude. At 12500 meters, it reaches 1000 km/h.
And finally, at 14500 meters it breaks Mach 1.
Now to look at the maximum altitude, which is stated to be 15 km.
First thing is I assumed that 15km would be the maximum due to the low fuel load of the Me 163, basically meaning that the Me 163 can theoretically go higher but runs out of fuel before that happens. However, even with the time limit of 6 minutes of fuel, I can get my Me 163 to 24km of altitude before fuel runs out.
So clearly it isn’t a time limitation. Possibly if I force my plane to stay at 6 minutes of fuel, with all that additional weight, then the Me 163 B won’t manage to get past 15 km of altitude.
However I still went higher than 15 km even with this additional weight, eventually topping out at 18500 meters.
So the maximum altitude of the Me 163 is wrong as well. Undoubtedly.
On top of that, while climbing from 0 to 15000 meters, the climb rate of my plane was always above 50 m/s, despite the 37 m/s climb rate stated by the stat card.
Max speed, max altitude and climb rate all wrong even with full fuel. And the Me 163 has been with this precise performance for years.
Except… I do know about MEC? I have no idea what immediately made you jump to the conclusion that I don’t know about MEC and don’t have MEC. I have the buttons mapped out to be used with my numpad, and depending on the plane I do actually use it because it can be useful, the Re.2005 being one of those planes, but even more so on the P-47s (except the N-15) which have tangible performance increases with correct MEC usage.
There’s no need to be aggressive and try to insult me simply because I explained what prop feathering is, information on which can even be found on Wikipedia.
As for the rest of your reply it genuinely has no meaning nor debunks anything I’ve said. There’s genuinely nothing there for me to argue about.
3 Likes
I know you don’t understand the stat cards, and that’s clear throughout the thread…
I see.
So instead of actually adding anything to the topic, you are going to act like a child and pretend you’re right after I’ve shown just how wrong the stat card on the Me 163 is? What even is there to understand about the stat cards that I don’t get?
If someone is actually wrong about something without knowing it, any good human would attempt to show said person the correct way of looking at things. You help no-one here by being childish as you are now. As you yourself have said once already, “stop trying to argue for the actual sake of it.”
Edit: Not to mention the other stuff like saying that I didn’t know MEC even though I do. I doubt you even knew about how P-47s (except the N-15) can actually gain a pretty decent boost in performance if one knows what they are doing with MEC.
1 Like
I added first, you came in dismissing my posts, and I called you out on having done that… So no, I’m not the one arguing here, you’re just wanting to tell me I’m wrong because I’m telling you factually that you don’t understand it, in a thread where I said that it was a misinterpretation, so I think you should just go sit down…
Like honestly… This is actually what annoys me about this community… When you try even throw out any sort of thinking or actual knowledge, peopel get all fixated on telling you you’re wrong with mere anecdotal evidence ignoring the points of the matter.
The TOP SPEED is at THAT HEIGHT… It can be more at any height or other attitude…
Like, damn bruh…
First, that’s not how the “max speed at height” statistic works.
“Max speed” is meant to show the maximum level flight speed of the plane.
“at height” simply shows what altitude this speed can be achieved at. You have shown that you yourself do not understand how the stat card is supposed to work.
Second, I showed the max speed at 4500 meters, and it is not 955 km/h either.
My reply showing max speed at 4500 meters
You have singlehandedly shown to not have even read my reply. Even if you were correct about your original assessment that it is simply the speed achieved at that height, you are still wrong because the Me 163 far surpasses 955 km/h when at 4500 meters.
That’s not to mention you haven’t addressed the max height and the climb rate being wrong.
Never, and I mean never, have I seen someone accuse another of “dismissing” their points, only to then prove spectacularly that they have been doing that the entire time. Or someone telling someone else that they don’t understand something, only to show that in reality its them that don’t understand it.
2 Likes
Yea, nah, you don’t know the game, and I’m very tired of interjecting sideliners who aren’t actually looking to help trying to jump on someone for explaining things…
Stat cards are accurate, they don’t ‘lie’ they aren’t ‘half truths’, it is player misinterpretation that leads to this.
The max height is a max hieght, but the max speed isn’t the max speed overall, because the max speed is at that height measured.
You can easily put yourself into a higher speed at risk of your craft, it’s not a definite.
All of this makes your entire basis of issue, wrong.
(Edit - Seriously, people need to stop taking a confronting concept to them as a personal attack… I don’t need you to throw anger at me merely because I point out that you don’t actually know or understand something… Sheeesshhhhhh…)
(false flagging needs to be bannable)
Again
If you hover over the “Max Speed” statistic It says “The vehicle’s maximum speed”, the maximum speed. Stop making this pointless, obviously wrong argument. Even the game disagrees with you. Does Gaijin misunderstand their own code now?
That’s what it is supposed to be, yes, now address the fact that it is just outright wrong by multiple kilometers.
No. Max speed is meant to be what is achievable in a straight line with maximum power. This is exactly what I did and the Me 163 did over what its maximum speed is meant to be.
Not to mention that I’m not even nearly at risk of the plane breaking apart. The Me 163 B has a Mach VNE of 1.05, I was doing 0.84, and an IAS rip speed of 1040 km/h, while I was at 781 km/h. Again, nowhere near any risk of my plane being destroyed. The Max speed is simply wrong. Accept that.
2 Likes
No.
(false flagging needs to be bannable)
Every once in a while it is mentally healthy to just… accept that we can be wrong about things.
You should try that. Until then don’t bother people on the forums with your “know it all” attitude. You don’t help anyone by pretending to be right and making half-assed attempts to prove yourself right that can be thrown away the moment someone does the slightest bit of research or testing.
1 Like
You’re the one making that statement yet you’re ignoring the points made by me, who actually does know.