It have AESA seeker, so.
Doesn’t mean it will be modelled correctly tho
Oh well not the first time things getting funny
1 Like
I agree, but I still maintain that the vectorization in War Thunder is complete garbage, totally poorly done. I wonder how the devs think this is useful.
This video of LongShot in a dogfight in Su30 shows the vectoring working as it should, and this isn’t an official game mod. There are several videos of the flankers in DCS by LongShot Growlingsidewinder, and you can see the big difference between FM there and here. I watch them occasionally, and when I go back to War Thunder I get quite discouraged. Honestly, I only don’t play DCS because my PC can’t handle it, but when I make some improvements I’ll definitely leave War Thunder.
2 Likes
Game engine designed for WW2 prop fighters struggles with supermanevuerable jet airframes with TVC engines, totally unexpected. I think you also expect from WT something that it never aimed to be, it is still a session based simcade with realistic elements designed around head to head combat. It is not a full fledged simulator with detailed flight models, even in sim game mode. Sure current Flanker FM sucks and TVC is broken, but i doubt it will ever be fixed.
1 Like
Impossible, as it has 70 degrees azimuth, which not even irbis achieves through only electronic beam steering. Considering that its elevation is locked at 45 degrees as well, it’s irlit had 45 degrees beam steering and then 30 degrees mechanically. (In game it’s models like it has ±70 degrees beam steering which is wrong)
Also what are you referring to by modeling issue
Here’s product page for n011m btw
Must be misremembering something, or misinterpreted something, cuz I seem to remember you saying/alluding to Bars being nerfed by not having 90° gimbal limits or something.
Not sure why you bring up the Bars in the EF thread though if its ingame scan limits are the exact ones on that page, its modelled accurately with no issue?
What I’m saying its largest scan is limited to its electronic scan, like its largest search pattern has to be within electronic limits and rn isn’t modeled to go beyond them.
So eft scan might be limited to ±70 scan for its largest search zone, like how su30sm largest scan is ±40 as that’s within its electronic scan zone.
Essentially I think that the eurofighter scan angle is likely not to be ±100
Oooh makes more sense now.
ECRS uses a different kind of repositioner, its not actualy clear what kind of electronic beam limits it has (educated guess is the bog standard ±60° full power, with an extra ~10° reduced power, and 30° angled plate) so it might be different. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
P.S: this is why I didnt wanna swap threads.
1 Like
Yeah fair, I’ll just edit my post clarifying my position
So it has nothing to do with IRL. Cool
1 Like
Great response, as expected from a great commentator on the Forum.
is he wrong tbf
They’ll probably never really change, unless it hits them in the wallet.
I didnt understand “tbf”
to be fair
Ah, I dont know, I just used DCS as a kind of base, even though its a mod. I’m sure that if the community could do something like this in War Thunder, they would do it even better than Gaijin, to be honest, at least in some parts
He’s not wrong, but he also not right. Unless ofc he has access to Su-30SM flight data.
2 Likes