So your saying that mig23 isnt proposing changes to make things more accurate? What if the vikhr is underperforming lmao sure its op but the goal is accuracy. If mig23 is commited to improving the accuracy of a certain nation it is because he wants accuracy not to artificially buff the Ussr. Mig23 has consistently made reports and used actually sources to substantiate them feel free to include evidence that his reports are untrue. If you want bias look at ziggy in the mig29 thread lol, he couldnt believe that the mig29 wasnt underperforming inspite of evidence that it was fine. Will look into the gripen drama though looks fun
5 Likes
They take it too personally and can’t be honest with themselves in the discussion
4 Likes
I mean its not unreasonable, everyone wants their favorite planes to be good, assuming it equates to accuracy. When a change is proposed if it counters what they want they feel like it is targeted at them/their nation. It doesnt help that the entire game has this air of russian bias
1 Like
I’m all for accuracy. Except it isn’t underperforming. Judging by combat footage from the war that shan’t be named, it is massively overperforming. Mig_23M conveniently never shares his sources, or when he does they are ancient pdfs about completely tangent topics.
Considering that sources are necessary for reports i find that unlikely, especially since ive seen him share both pictures of and the actual sources themselves. Combat footage is not helpful for modeling, though it can be evidence for revision of a fm which needs to be substantiated with actual documents. Also old doesnt mean not helpful or not true. The biggest problem is a lack of bad faith on both sides, once hostility starts its easy for me to see the aggressor as less credible, a reputation that doesnt leave them. Just need a perception reset so everyone accepts criticism
1 Like
I don’t care about my perception at all - it doesn’t aid in correcting unrealistic performance.
Often when things overperform (and is often the case for NATO stuff oddly enough)… they hide the useful information and do not share it under any circumstances.
4 Likes
Well im trying to be impartial here, i meant that those who immediately reject others as trolls or derailers (in this case biased) due to past transgressions should actually consider propositions before denouncing anything again. You have cultivated a reputation that leads people to erroneously discredit you and your motives, i want others to look at the substance of your arguemsnts on a case by case basis. eliminates the previously discussed personal offense
1 Like
They should heavily criticize everything I’ve ever posted… but yes on an individual basis. There’s a reason I’ve passed so many reports.
AMRAAMs can go active from launch, they automatically go active at 16kph whether the host radar has a lock or not.
Vikhr is missing 200mm of flat pen, and adjusted accordingly for higher angles. Other than that it’s the same with the other missiles in game.
So there is an inaccuracy? lol thats crazy i though mig23 wanted the vikhr to go 10^9 m/s so that his favorite vehicle the ka52 could be better /s
1 Like
If we’re talking about reliability, during the Ethiopia and Eritrea war, only one out of like 20 r-27s launched hit a target.
1 Like
Missiles require periodic maintenance, shelf life of American missiles isn’t so great either.
Yeah, just take their word for it with no source
Idk where mig23 gets his numbers from here but while static thrust is ver similar between the two, optimal thrust has a much larger gap, which is what i believe he was refering to. Once again no idea where his numbers come from.
1 Like
I meant no offense lmao, i was and still am a mig29 fanboy and wish it was what it isnt. I think that the absence of a nato equivalent to the 27er is pretty inexcusable tbh, theres no way adding a aim7p with datalink is too much to ask for. Would basically be a qol change tho, wouldnt adress the issue
Is this the Mig29 thread?
Is this the R27ER thread?
Datalink? The Aim7 does not need datalink to compete at 12.3.
what happened is he did what he was accusing me of, and misread the graphs. Then instead of admitting that, he’s doubling down and comparing dynamic thrust instead, when I specifically said in my initial comment “the gap is not as big as he would have you think, it even has the advantage in static thrust”
He’s so desperate to be right that he just glosses over things. Some of the extrapolations he was trying to do on dodgy graphs was absolute gold. Fools gold.
I very explicitly said the numbers that are under an entirely different aircrafts max weight 1:1… how is that interpreted as “misreading the graphs”?
I must admit you’re incredibly good at mental gymnastics.
Calm down boys, let’s not initiate ww3…
1 Like