it is though
iirc the sample size for statshark is the whole playerbase so it doesnt have the sampling error thunder skill had
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
do you really trust google AI
but somehow say statshark cant be trusted?
1 Like
He just doesnt trust any statistics that dont fit his preconceived narrative
Not at all.
I’m merely using it to create a quick summery of why stat shark and other 3rd party websites aren’t accurate
well its wrong and contradicts itself
so maybe actually look into stuff before posting it
As I said it only works for very basic player stats, like how we seen yours are absolutely dog water.
Where does it contradict itself there? xD
one google can take you to many threads, topics, videos etc on why statsharks not that reliable, hell even the developer of it got caught using hacks on WT xD
Ah so statshark is good enough for statshaming but for statistics that prove you wrong its unrealiable? Aint that convenient, huh.
1 Like
Again refusing to read.
It is reliable for finding an individuals stat, unlike Thuderskill was, and actively seeing how they perform as an individual.
The active compiling and grading of those stats in the hundreds of thousands is where the platform falls short, as has been proven time and time again.
Not only for players, for vehicles as well.
- It is not my fault you’re still upset about being proven wrong earlier.
- any and all 3rd party sites are not reliable sources for the majority of in game performance metrics.
Stat shark showing the F15E having a dog water winrate doesn’t mean the plane is bad specifically.
especially considering USA is on both teams every single game.
Any one with more than a year playing the game knows this stuff.
Why what’s the difference between finding one person at a time. Sure I agree statshark is better for general population, but for one person? They’re essentially the same
1 Like
Has it now? By whom exactly?
Never happened but like i said preconceived notion and such
We get it dude you have your opinions, youre not going to change them but maybe stop commenting now its really getting embarrassing
The answer is that planes outside of Eurofighter / Rafale etc have installed thrust loss values that seem at least plausible.
In order to force the game engine to get the Rafale and Eurofighter to supercruise, Gaijin is using the uninstalled thrust values or approximations as the installed values, or in the Rafales case… actually adding to uninstalled values at times, and then reducing drag values to implausibly low levels in order to force the planes to match a few metrics in-game.
F-15e can also supercruise so I don’t get this argument.
Although unlike those planes we can see f15e cruising speed from its manual, Altho i didn’t test whether or not it actually matches up with its manual
2 Likes
cant wait to see how nutty its gonna get if they try match f22s mach 1.7-1.8 supercruise
Officially it’s only Mach 1.5+ (that one image showing its dry cruise flight performance is classified and cannot be used so gaijin will probably only make it 1.5 which is the highest stated public number)
iirc there was more evidence that could still be used for 1.7+
there’s pilot statements, but other than that, I don’t think there’s anything officially claiming more than mach 1.5+
when calculate channel loss
you do not account in weight
you account in the variable intake size compare to the engine intake size
given that the F-15s intake are almost 1:1(maybe 1:1) the account of ~20% lost of thrust are simply too much
the intake side determine the performance of the actual engine thrust, not the weight → it would be a different calculation
reason why older fighter jet(or bus like F-4E) has strong engine but isnt very good as a fighter because of small intakes and obviously heavy
bigger(bigger doesnt mean better but still) intake = more air = more air more compression = more compression = more thrust
this is why modern fighters are so big and heavy but still provide enough power to be agile
also
cars n jets are different categories
car engines use air to cooldown while jet engine use air to cooldown AND produce thrust
the only part where weight matter is speed, manuverability and lift
2 Likes
From a gameplay perspective why does the amount of thrust the aircraft generates matter? All that really matters is acceleration at different speeds and altitudes. Thrust curves are generally guesswork anyways, static thrust is only valid at 0 airspeed.
Are people just looking at WTRTI or X-ray and getting upset that their engine is making 69000 kgf instead of 80085 kgf (arbitrary numbers) because immersion???