I’ll look into it further tomorrow, but also in the rate department is still overperforming by a not big but significant margin (about 0.5 deg/sec), although as you said localhost fm editor mass control seems to be glitched so the aircraft may be lighter than what it shows.
Still this is much better than the freaking UFO it was before, pulling 16Gs and rating over 2 degrees a second more than what it should.
There are literally no “Russian mains” in here complaining about the UFO flight model. There are no US mains in here complaining either. All the talk back and forth about overperforming aircraft, I think this shows how the community members are most biased.
The F-16 currently still severely overperforming in AoA / Stability to the point that the MiG-29 can’t even beat it in a one circle fight to save it’s life. The F-16 is abhorrently overperforming. The issue has been reported, and Gaijin refuses to fix the bug because it’s convenient and American players are doing so poorly (still) in the aircraft that they wouldn’t want to alter it’s efficiency prior to adding fox-3s.
Hopefully they take this seriously and correct the issues with their instructor that they claim are preventing them from correcting the extreme high alpha capability of the F-16 before other relaxed stability designs come to the game. Though I’m skeptical there’s even an issue with it, since the Mirage 2000 is in the game and is performing perfectly fine.
Because numerous elements of the metagame doesn’t suit the US Tech tree? Let alone US designs.
Not really.
Main issues is they dont improve themselves.
There is a aircraft that has trial/development stage air to air ordenance in warthunder? Which has that?
Yak-141 / F-16AJ
Those are armed with in service air to air ordinance.
The fact they are armed is the stand out part, but thats leeway Gaijin has had a pretty solid trackrecord on for a number of aircraft previously. Like the Kika, Ho229 and many other prototyoe aircraft.
Im asking about trial/development stage air to air ordenance being used on aircraft in warthunder.
Examples would be AIM-9R or Aim-95 if it was fitted to some aircrafts in warthunder. As those are trial/development stage weaponry in that they nevered entered service.
Unlike R60M on Yak-141 which is prototype/development/trial aircraft, which gaijin uses previous standards about giving weaponry to aircraft that were made to fit them.
There’s also just the simple fact that most games in air RB are just US v US mirror matches for the last year and a half now, which will automatically drag the win-rate of a given nation towards 50%.
No, the point about the -AJ was that it’s apparently representative of a prospective Japanese Block -10 airframe that would have seen service. The Addition of Sparrows in the first place is non-standard, and entirely conceptual bullshit. The images of an F-16A carrying sparrows is representative of a single FSD airframe(#72-1568), which isn’t even technically a production aircraft.
The addition of the Sparrows is the bit that is “trial / conceptual”, especially considering that the flight testing was only complete in 1989. it’s a configuration that never made it to the base airframe in question let alone in the 75/76 timeframe of the proposal.
Because otherwise it’d be perfectly fine to add ATAS / AGM-114 / M230e 30mm to the AH-1F right?
SRAAMs on Hunter and Harrier
Dont care. Im asking about experimental air to air ordenance that never reached service being fitted tp aircraft in Warthunder. Like the example of Aim 9R and 95 i provided.
Im not at all talking about how Gaijin bend the rules of giving air craft their intended armaments. Of which all the armaments did enter service, but not on the vehicle i question.
If there is no examples of the situation i described, thats fine. But then id scratch that from the list as i was kinda hoping there was an example as that would open up for the 9R being the first FPA seeker in Warthunder
They immediately sidestepped the issue (the F-16). Focused on a completely sidenote-aspect of my argument. You want the game to be better? Don’t scream for balance and then sit quiet when it’s skewed in your favor.
The F-16 is a UFO. It needs to be fixed. Don’t pretend I’m sitting here advocating for a bias towards another nation either, I didn’t ask for the R-27ER or the SMT’s radar.
I feel like the AoA issue on the F-16 which lead to its buff/removal of the limiter was a problem of gaijins own making.
Through top tier premiums, excessive multipath, and the spotting system, all things that make flying and air combat much easier for bad players to make it to top tier, and play air rb on a more even footing with better players, gaijin has fostered a community of truly terrible pilots. This, along with the mouse aim mechanics, has led to HUD BFM being rampant, and multipath being abused to the point of seeming more like an exploit than anything (its a 100% guaranteed way to defeat all radar missiles with literally no downside for the player abusing it) has led to it being extremely easy to close the distance through screens of radar missiles and get into low alt dogfight furballs.
Because of this, jets that cant snap pull high AOA for quick adjustments, such as the F-16 pre-limiter removal, are considered “bricks” and people complain of their “compression” at speed, which in the case of the F-16 just made it really easy to maintain a good rate, but players who only play partaking in HUD BFM wouldnt know that, and as such would widely complain about the AOA problems.
Gaijin really needs to stop handholding pilots at top tier or in air RB in general, the gamemode is getting successively worse because of it, and I know many players that used to play air RB almost exclusively, that have moved on to other gamemodes, such as ground rb or air sim to avoid the hoards of garbage players and terrible game design decisions gaijin keeps making with the game mode.
Who is They? You do know that they probably have a handle and / or a proper reply would be perfectly fine, if not courteous you know.
There are far bigger issues than the F-16’s handling that Gaijin could use the dev time on, like fixing the issues with StarStreak or Stinger /Mistral, etc. especially considering the number of tweaks, and the admission that they won’t be able to get it perfectly precise.
The issues do not occur in a vacuum, and it wasn’t as if you didn’t bring up Player skill as an issue so why detract, and add superfluous detail to your own argument?
If you really do think that balance will be achieved when everything is modeled accurately , well I have a bridge I can sell you.
There are various (meta)mechanics that exist entirely to skew things in various ways to allow the Matchmaker to enforce various KPIs upon the player base.
So do most if not all bugs that get reported, its not up to us to triage them and they can take significant amounts of time to actually be actioned.
When did I ever make such a claim? Sure you are hyper-focused on getting the particular issue fixed, my point was that there are structural issues with the implementation of the US tech tree which put it at a significant disadvantage, let alone the Average pilot’s skill and the Law of Large Numbers.
It’s almost like there is counterplay available for overperforming F-16 / R-27Ex, etc. Acknowledge that current performance is what it is and take that into account when fighting them, Don’t merge with an F-16, and hug the deck when faced with the potential R-27Ex. It really isn’t that hard to minimize said advantages. Does it mitigate them entirely, No but it goes a long way to setting things up for success.
From what Smin has said on discord*, devs work on their own things, and there’s flight model devs that work on FMs, so it’s not like time on F-16’s flight model would be taken away from fixing Stingers/Mistrals or the structural issues you mentioned.
Despite the issues that existed, Air RB at top tier was fun until the broken flight model of the F-16 made it unbearable to play against them.
I do have to agree with Mig_23M here however, and say that when it comes to problems at top tier, I regard the F-16’s overperformance a higher priority than multi-path or what have you. Multi-path affects everyone equally, F-16’s overperformance does not.
I would be able to suck it up and just bite my tongue if the F-16’s performance was correct, but seeing the convincing arguments that it’s not, doesn’t help my experience in Air RB.
Separate devs, FM devs aren’t particularly busy. Unless whole changes to instructor or necessary… FM fixes are some of the fastest turn arounds.
Nothing yet sorry.
Sadge, thanks for the reply tho
The Hunter and Harrier have the SRAAM missile. I guess you could also argue that air-to-air Starstreak is only in the development stage.
