just like teh F5C going to 10.7 for some unknown reason, i racked up nearly a 2.0kd with it at 11.0 not amazing but that means it still performs fine at 11.0
now weve got 12.7 F16s again, and its recompressed to hell from 11.0 up to 13.7
its a shambles.
I recently decided to crew the German F-104G just to try out a non-soviet high tier aircraft, and it really isn’t very good. I’ll be primarily comparing it to the German MiG-21Bis-SAU.
They have roughly equivalent acceleration at lower speeds, but the MiG-21 is miles better once you start to reach mach 0.8, and it will consistently stay at its speed limit of 1350ish kmh, while the F-104 accelerates slower, but has a higher top speed.
Neither have good energy retention, but the Mig-21 makes up for it in it’s vastly superior manoeuvrability at all speeds. Overall, the Mig-21 will win in any dogfight due to its superior acceleration and manoeuvrability.
As for armament, the F-104 has a vastly superior cannon with better ballistics and ammo count, but it only has 4 Aim-9Js, and you don’t even get them stock. The Mig has 2 R-60MKs stock, and can carry up to 6 of them, making it have much more potential.
Overall the Mig-21bis is a vastly superior aircraft at the same BR. And personally, I think that the Mig-21MF at 10.7 has comparable flight performance and equivalent missiles at 10.7.
Really, there’s no excuse for the F-104s to be so highly BR’ed, because they lack so much stuff that other planes have. They have the energy retention of a Mig-21, while having none of the manoeuvrability of one. If it had some sort of all aspect missile, I’d be fine with the F-104G being 11.0, but it’s just stuck with an R-60 equivalent.
The issue isnt that they are over BRd the issue is that most the shit around them is under brd
Realistically we need br about 15.0 to decompress properly, the f104s do not need to go down, 9.7 has enough nonsense to deal with not more f104s.
That is fair, and I agree.
Decompression would be a better solution to 90% of BR issues that air has.
As for the F-104G, my experience has gotten better as I work towards spading it, and I have figured out the strategy to playing it well.
I never judge a platform until its spaded
Decompression would solve a plethora of issues along side some new game.modes
Bump since the F-104G, F104S and F104ASA (TAF) are still vastly outclassed by vehicles that are sometimes even 0.7BRs lower
The F-104S would be fine at 11.0 imo. It fixes my main issue with the F-104s (low acceleration).
The G has 2-4 less missiles and a mich worse engine at only 0.3 BRs lower
Ideally all 10.0+ F-104s would go down by 0.3, but I’d rather see everything else go up by 0.3 instead.
The problem with it is the unrealistic flight model. It bleeds way too much energy. The turn rate is fine, but it shouldn´t bleed as much speed. It has a very small wing which can´t generate the huge amount of drag. It should simply stall if you pull too much. There is F-104 mod for DCS and a full fleged module was just announced. We’ll see how it handles. Our F-104 certainly isn’t the widowmaker it was supposed to be.
Its drag is also higher than it’s supposed to be due to how lazily Gajin implemented the nerf.
For those commenting on the F-104 flight model changes creating a problem due to incorrect drag ( @Mora and @Pangolin_Fan ), is this information anywhere in a bug report, or has anyone created such a report yet? If not, it should be done.
But yes, as an F-104 enjoyer, I agree that the F-104s are definitely suffering noticeably from the effects of BR compression right now- there are several aircraft in their BR range that need to go up by a BR increment or two, and depending on those adjustments, the 104s could stay at their current BRs or still be shifted downward by an increment for all of the versions above BR 10.0. The 104S-ASA should definitely go down to 11.7, or even 11.3, with the S and S-TAF to 11.0 and the Gs to 10.7.
The issue is with how Warthunder calculates aircraft performance.
Basically he F-104 pre-nerf was turning too sharp. Gajin’s solution was to increase the drag by a factor of like 7x, whilst in all reality the problem was that it was created too much drag.
In other words, the wings in real life were physically too small to apply enough force on the plane to change its direction as fast as in did Warthunder, and so the plane would “drift” through the air if you pulled up too hard in real life.
Right, I understand. This was the origin of the F-104’s “superstall” if you pulled too much AOA. The Starfighter could maintain a very fast, high-energy turn, just not very sharply. This capability is not modeled correctly due to the improper method used to reduce the 104s in-game turning radius and ability to pull excessively high Gs: increasing drag.
However, we know that these variables can be manipulated to get things much closer than they are, so I return to my original question: what information is needed to document/bug report this, and if it is available, has anyone done it yet?
I haven’t seen any bug reports on it yet. It’s been a while since Gajin broke it, so I’m pretty sure people have simply forgotten about it.
With the F104s, at this point the F104G, F104S, and F104S-ASA should all at least be dropped by 0.3br, with their previous FM they at least were somewhat competitive though nowadays they really aren’t worth playing compared to their contemporaries.
Had gaijin properly balanced the F104A and C and not have them terrorize an entire BR range for so long, I think the FM nerf would have not been as severe.
I never played this plane before the nerf so idk how it was, but going in a dive at a very steep angle with afterburner and doing minor defensive flying causes me to lose an insane amount of speed
This airframe feels very neutered now. Even when i was spading the Swift before the nerf, the F104 never felt like a real threat, only extremely annoying cus you wouldn’t be able to catch it and they would drag the match for ever