me when something that requires thick air struggles in thin air
dev server btw, its early in the models development
This is the latest data at an altitude of 10,000 meters. As you can see, Gaijin basically shifted the entire thrust curve of the WS‑10A upward by a certain amount, and that’s how they obtained the data for the WS‑10B. It’s just… speechless.
Let’s take a look at the performance at 8,000 meters: Alright, there’s no obvious change. The acceleration curves of the WS-10B and WS-10A are almost completely overlapping… I’m at a loss for words because of how lazy Gaijin is. Since there’s no exact English equivalent for the Chinese internet slang “难绷”, please allow me to use this term to express my opinion about Gaijin: 难绷.
My actual experience playing today was really terrible. Although I’d prefer to believe the stats just haven’t been implemented yet and it’s still just a simple copy-paste job, considering past patterns… I have to remain skeptical. I genuinely hope this plane—my favorite—doesn’t receive any form of nerf.
Even at an altitude of 10,000 meters, the AL-41F still holds an advantage in its optimal speed range (1,000–1,500 km/h), while the WS-10B’s advantageous speed range (1,500–2,000 km/h) remains completely ineffective
J15 possibly is not ready jet, it should have less channel loss than the j10c by quite a margin also thr performance curve is wrong
I hope the thrust curve is still W.I.P because the current one really doesn’t make much sense
It overlaps the WS-10A at certain altitudes while it is better at others, and it’s at random intervals as well.
the F-4E is lighter than the F-4J, and the F-4E even had the internal gun adding to empty weight
I think almost all top planes excessively overperform in some area simply because thats how gaijn want
3 Likes
WS10B should be boosting more.It is not powerful enough on high-altitude.It is too weak than it should be.Beside J15T should have 360° RWR because it is a eletronic warfare fighter.And with only 48 countermeasures,it should have a 360° RWR to make sure it won’t die quickly in the game.
2 Likes
China players will not believe any “early stage” excuses, because we have been cheated too many times.
3 Likes
yes we know the loud ones are arrogant to the purpose of a dev server. Beta testing
IT IS A TEST ENVIRONMENT FOR BUG FINDING DURING THE WIP
Every single Britain, France, Italy, and Israeli player knows that more than the chinese mains do. They need to stop with such an extreme victim complex.
Gaijin must fix it. We all know that WS-10B does well at high altitude.
So I’m still using real data to prove my point, not being unreasonable.
Besides, losing trust in Gaijin is not our fault—it’s Gaijin’s own laziness. A single bug can take months to fix.
If the test server isn’t used to find and point out errors, then what’s the point of having it at all?
4 Likes
it is.
Gaijin is very slow to do anything but they get around to it eventually most the time, until its something extreme, then it probably wont happen because lazy.
Generally all it requires is having actual data to prove it, and to make the report simple to understand for them
1 Like
“Easy to understand” – that’s the hardest part, bro. Sometimes I suspect the people in the issue section aren’t as logical as we think they are… you know what I mean :(
1 Like
easy to understand is the hard part yes.
Myself and other bug reporters have figured out a rather reliable template for the reports at least.
the way i write my own bug reports is:
Vehicle affected
[file name of the vehicle (found in the URL of its wiki page)]
Issue
[whats wrong and by how much, sometimes a breif explanation of how its meant to act]
source
[name of source]
i then attatch the sources and screenshots of the relevant parts
you need only one 1st party source (manuals or manufacturer document/brochure) but multiple 3rd party (history books/magazines) that dont reference the same sources just to ensure its not an editing error
Heres my bug reporting account as a reference
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/u/132670147/issues
1 Like
Alright right, thanks for the help, bro. But here’s the problem we’re running into now:
We’ve found out that Gaijin used data from Jane’s to make the J-15T.
But the data in Jane’s is contradictory.
According to Jane’s, the WS‑10B has a thrust‑to‑weight ratio of 8.8.
Based on that, the weight of the WS‑10B should be around 1500 kg.
However, Gaijin used the direct figure from Jane’s, which is about 1900 kg.
And here’s the kicker: Gaijin themselves don’t accept Jane’s as a valid source — even though they used Jane’s to build the vehicle in the first place.
That’s the contradiction that’s driving us crazy:
How can we make the developers realize their own source data is inconsistent?
I have no idea, so I’m just gonna have to speak up on public forums.
8 Likes
I’ve received a response to my report:
“The developers do not accept the empty weight report.”
Even with numerous authoritative sources confirming the J-15T has an empty weight of 17.5 tons, they are rejecting it without any valid justification whatsoever.
I do not believe for a second that they possess more authoritative or classified data to back up their refusal.
Janes is both a decent source for a rough idea of a vehcile and bad source for precision thats probably why they use it for the initial build of the vehicle but not as the fact-checking source.
Gaijin also couldnt ever do as good at researching as a devoted group of players to a specfic vehicle. They are heavily reliant on players who already have the information to let them know (they are far too reliant on this system)
Doesnt help that a lot of the bug reporting moderators are far from helpful and often a bigger obstacle than the actual bug/inaccuracy.
talking about an issue on the forums does bump the priority of the change up in their lists. However being obnoxious about it (like what happens pretty much every time a chinese vehicle isnt perfect on dev)
1 Like