“A report” here equals the definitive 1953 technical study of the Me 163 and the German rocket program, involving “the applicable portions of the 55,000 captured foreign documents relating to rocket engines, supplemented by interrogations of German technical personnel located in the United States.”
Maybe, just maybe, Gaijin should have done their research in the first place and then the 163s wouldn’t have been broken for years until now.
Engine, air lift surfaces, and other differences people more knowledgeable than I know about.
Maybe, but I was only stating the fact that copy-paste premiums are largely newer in terms of focus.
F-86F-40 for Japan was a rarity when it released, and was the last copy-paste vehicle for a long time.
Premium vehicles are a nice to have, but never a necessity.
Nah, you annoy literally everyone…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
6 minutes of fuel = broken
It’s literally rocket science, which neither of us is qualified to be trusted on, but if you take the time to skim the references it makes sense.
Rockets are basically controlled explosions and throttling them (more than just on/off) is hard. What the 1953 study says, tldr, is that the 163’s rocket was rather ingenious and was able to get a basically continuous throttle up to about 75% of the rocket engine’s total rated thrust at sea level. Beyond that it didn’t work so well. The study’s authors found this finding consistent with wartime practice that 75% was the functional combat throttle limit too.
So the game gives you the choice now. You can run your 163 at the max 75% throttle the real pilots would have, and you’ll get your six minutes of endurance they had, or you can run it at 100% of rated thrust, despite it being unrealistic in terms of performance gains, but the side effect is you run out of fuel in four minutes instead.
Why is the F-111 F only getting two agm-130s when i can hold 4
Also why cant this thing track moving targets greater than 2 miles? So if i lock a target at longer ranger and they move 50 feet the AGM-130 just goes to where it was spotted on. Thats more of a GPS guidance than TV, because TV guidance is able to track moving targets.
Regardless of what the document even states, as quite frankly I do not believe Gaijin even looked at that at all, and it seems to just be about their findings using their parameters more than anything, the point is that we are still playing a game.
A game where the center of the map is 3 minutes of flying, a game where WW2 planes are facing off against things from 50 years later, supersonic jets and all aspects missiles from random nations at random locations… the fuel amount for the 163 is what matters?
You can add a Sturmtiger and give it a reload so it’s playable, you can add neutral steering to a T95, you can give a 2S38 the ability to shoot 148 rounds and somehow never overheat, but when it comes to this shit overtiered plane, suddenly realism is everything and it cannot be given a playable fuel amount and some document is more important than gameplay?
Is the CAPTORS performance fixed yet or has it been put in with the placeholder sea harrier radar?
Wow. I’m guessing that wasn’t in any changelog?
It’s not a “document”, it’s more the physics of rocket propulsion you have a problem with. And yes, staying consistent with aerophysics is actually more important than gameplay, in a flight simulator.
A fan of the game took the time to find an actual definitive primary source collecting the inputs of the people who actually built and flew the vehicle in question, which apparently conclusively proves their point, which I always think is great whenever it happens; good for that guy and the effort they took to make this a better simulation. I actually learned something here, which makes me if anything respect the 163 program and its pilots even more. But you’ve told us literally thousands of times here you disagree, especially whenever it’s a German vehicle that you feel suffers, so this is a pointless discussion, really.
It is worth noting people should look at other rocket motors old and new.
There’s very intentional design behind the moon lander and lunar transfer/service stages. Limited ignitions, limited to non-existing throttling.
And those are a good 20-30 years more modern than WW2.
Even the modern merlin engines used on the falcon can be barely throttled, requiring the near-suicide burn landings they do. They did “go around” the problem by using multiple rocket motors and only igniting a few rather than all to control thrust more “precisely.”
staying consistent with aerophysics is actually more important than gameplay, in a flight simulator.
Good thing WT isn’t a flight simulator.
What a complete asinine thing to say, to pretend that realism should outweigh gameplay as a WW2 Me 163 takes off in Golan heights in defense of Isreal or whatever, alongside American, Italian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, French, Austrian, Dutch, Belgian, Turkish, Thai whatever jets from 10-20-30-40-50-60-70 years in the future… the main thing is that realism is kept at all costs, at the expense of gameplay.
It is though.
It is also of pretty decent quality if you consider its age.
It’s a late 2000s flight sim that has made efforts to improve accessibility and simplified mission design. It’s literally built upon IL-2’s late 2000s single player “Birds of Prey.”
If you compare Warthunder’s flight models to flight sims from mid-late 2000s, they’d be on par. In fact, I dare say it’s superior to Microsoft Flight Simulator X for modelling near-stall (and other very unusual) flight conditions. In MSFX, cross-controlled inputs get messed up unless you move the stick back to neutral. In Warthunder, hard left rudder is appropriately countered by appropriate right stick and the plane flies straight (movement) while looking like an idiot because the nose is pointing into the middle of nowhere. MSFSX can’t do it without mods.
If you’re flying sim, sure… otherwise it’s just an arcade game both arcade and realistic, and fuel amount shouldn’t be more important than gameplay, a line that has been established many times before by giving a vehicle unrealistic capabilities in order to be playable, and the Me 163 should not be the exception to that, 3 minutes of fuel is completely absurd and unreasonable.
You do realize the engine used in me163 doesn’t need to be ignited though?
It’s just two reacting liquids that are pumped together.
It was literally called the cold rocket.
It was extremely unreasonable the actual pilots only took off with 3 minutes of fuel at full throttle, yes.
Yeah, can’t believe they did that yesterday
163 is unusable now, not enough fuel to climb/fight/return to base. Am I expected to mindlessly suicide rush every round with no hopes of returning to airfield?
I mean, this Me163 on afganisthan did quite well engaging in quite the prolonged harrassment of the F8F-9 that far outpaced its 6 minute throttle.
Map is 128x128 km, runway to where they fought was probably at least 48 kilometers from friendly runway.
Given how effective it was on a 128x128 map, and given how most of ARB seems to be still stuck in less than 64x64 even at jets, I think it should manage if abusing its ability to coast/sail.
(I did not find this video for sake of this post. I found it ages ago when trying to think if I want the f9f-8 or not).