biggest problem is 11,3 is to high for the tornado, needs to be at least 11,0 and the marineflieger 10,7
1 Like
yes we really like the vehicles and yes the puma is still too new to be completely sure about it but as far as this debate is concerned, and a simple matter, the gunjob as well as the vast majority own the manuals that have been declassified by the brits. I have a German copy of the ids Marineflieger version, both aircraft are very similar structurally, but the point is about its fly by wire system, where on the one hand the gunjob states that the system does not interfere with the pilot’s commands. allowing tornadoes to lose their wings easily with pilot error, and I’m trying to explain that when the tornado manual refers to the “spils” system that has as its function to guarantee the operation of the aircraft with the best possible design by evaluating the commands of the pilot together with sensors to perform the maneuvers without putting the aircraft at risk!, as described in the manual, that is, preventing the aircraft from reaching the structural limits. however gunjob disagrees and believes that it is completely normal for the plane to lose its wings Rolling on its own axis, as if the spars were made of glass, this is clearly wrong but he is stubborn, he wants proof however different from the british the luftwaffe only discloses a few report and operational histories but the marineflieger manual has not yet been released. and he knows that, so he’s assuming that the planes are totally the same as the British and Italian ones. while I can’t publish even an old document as I believe it hasn’t been officially declassified yet at least I haven’t found anything officially… so the German marineflieger tornado ids remains anyone’s guess. because if we search the official website of the luftwaffe we will see some different descriptions about the marineflieger. with its model doppler radar. their engines, among other things. however official German air force reports and operational history are not reliable evidence according to gunjob. so that’s it he probably never played or doesn’t play with tornadoes assta1 or marineflieger to understand how ridiculous the plane is, at the same time he defends that the plane is perfectly correct
Not this again…
Do you really think that there was a concerted effort among NATO to put misleading information in all the Tornado manuals, release to service paperwork, and sales brochures?
How many flight accidents are known about Tornados throwing of its wings?
Real pilots stick strictly to the limits listed in the manual, specifically to avoid that sort of accident. So not many.
it would not be the first time that the British government, like any government, would lie desperately to gain even a small advantage.
Nope, you’re wrong. Just to answer that: So far not a single IDS lost its wings while doing some basic rolls or turns. Ingame its a death sentence, it snaps off its wings far to frequently. So we have reality vs ingame situations. Its Occam’s Razor… the most simple explanation is often the right one: Means most likely all your accounts and manuals are just wrong.
No one would even commission a jet that fragile than our ingame Tornado is. Tornado is still in use by Nato countries and when you really think that the brit gv releases its specs, you’re just plain wrong. Ofc its desinformation.
2 Likes
That might be the stupidest thing I’ve read on this forum to date.
5 Likes
Spacing please, i wont read that kind of wall
I think our ingame Tornado might be the most … thing we currently have ingmae. Have you actually played it?
Can you please link me some Tornado flight accidents due to structural wing failure? If the real Tornado would be even a tiny bit like our ingame one, there must have been an impressive list of incidents. But there is nothing. Something doesn’t add up.
2 Likes
In that case instructor restriction simulation might be needed to be added, to simulate the pilot skill to stop the manoveir right before snapping
he doesn’t play, if in doubt he doesn’t even have the vehicles, if he did I would invite him and show us how I play with marineflieger or assta1 in an honest x1. I would go 10.7 against him in the simulation, who knows, maybe he’ll teach us how to play and dodge the missiles of the F14 mig 29 F16 with a plane that breaks down in the simplest curves. but he shouldn’t even play, he just blindly believes what the british government has published and that’s it, he owns the reason the tornado is made of 5% aluminum 5% wood 90% glass
2 Likes
Just to be clear what is it your arguing?
-
The RAF lied to their pilots about the capability of their aircraft, purposefully preventing them from making full use of said aircraft.
-
The British government spent lots of time and effort to create fake Tornado documents where the only thing they changed was the g limits of the airframe.
Both options are rediculous, but I at least need to know what I’m trying to refute.
1 Like
Sure lets pretend I’ve not played the Tornado…
Over 1600 matches across the GR.1 and F.3, I have flown the ASSTA, Marineflieger, ADV and 1995 on my dev server account, the only difference between the GR.1 and the other IDS variants is they have more engine power in dry thrust and a bit more in reheat. Other than that they have identical flight models. With the F.3 having the lowest G rating of them all.
3 Likes
You’re probably just mocking us. Thats not what we said. Ofc you tell your pilots the truth - always.
But on the other hand GB won’t release and unclassify true specs of an still active Nato aircraft. Its pretty obvious that its just desinformation. Everything else would be something like treason. The values are so rediculously low, its almost a no brainer.
Who would actually adopt military jets with similar neg overload values than a civilian Boing 747 passenger liner? SERIOUSLY.
1 Like
If you have any evidence to support your currently unsubstantiated claims, then we can certainly pass that on.
Simply saying “no your sources are wrong, because it must be misinformation”, without being able to post a single credible piece of material other than your personal opinion however is not something that we or the developers can do anything with at all.
The Tornado Manuals, like all other out of service RAF aircraft, were handled and released the exact same way as all previous manuals. All aircraft in game follow their manual provided specs wherever its possible to do so.
Gunjob, Flame and others efforts have lead to the Tornados in game being far closer to reality than they otherwise would have been and have been from other games renditions. Thanks to the many sources and well documented reports they have made.
Nothing can however be done simply on the basis of you personally disagreeing with primary source material, with nothing at all source wise to counter it with.
3 Likes
Also the counter measure count per BOZ pod isn’t right. Ingame its only 56 CMs for both pods combined. This includes flares and chaffs. Probably another of these “strange unclassfied accounts”, cause one single BOZ 107/101 should have 28x 55mm flares and over 500 chaffs PER POD. So the ingame IDS is missing almost 1000 CMs when using the two pods configuration.
I wouldn’t call this close to reality. (56 CMs is a joke for 11.3 anyways…).
2 Likes
One thing I will add to this is that the Tornado manuals state varying G limits for certain weights and speeds up to a max of 7.5Gs. However I feel like this is the only aircraft in the game that I can recall actually having its G limit change for different weights and loads? For example the Mig 29 has a flat rate of 9 x 1.5G for rippin in game but the limits in the manual vary from +4 to +9 depending on the configuration. Why is the Tornado seemingly the only aircraft to experience this? A fully loaded Tornado just needs to be breathed on to distintegrate whilst other fully loaded aircraft don’t seem to experience this?
2 Likes
As we have already mentioned when the Tornados first came to the game, we do not currently have a system that allows two differing types of countermeasures operating in tandem from the same aircraft system.
The flare count for the aircraft is currently correct. The BOZ pods also had 500 packets of chaff, which could not be replaced with flares, but had to specifically be chaff.
We are working on the possibility of such a system in game, but there is currently no way in the game to replicate this without a dedicated system.
The Tornado manual specifically outlines the weight limits for certain G overloads. In any cases where this information is available / reported / provided, its implemented to the aircraft.
ah yeah just wanted to say as well, sadly the same with the Puma MUSS and AHEAD, like the Countermeasure pods the system simply is not in the game yet and will be added at another date, we can only hope it is gonna be sooner then later
Do the G loads also scale with suspended weaponry or speed in game?