No no no. Remove Air Arcade for 8.0 and above because ARB above 8.0 is basically arcade. Rename ARB for 8.0+ to Air Arcade. Then, make a copy of Air Sim, name it ARB, and give it ARB controls and a shorter timer but with no names above people’s heads and dumb arcadey nonsense that’s in ARB today. I would play the heck out of that.
And then go fix all the problems with Air Sim because it’s just broken today.
How does it show that it’s fine? Do you even know what you are looking at?
Literally just use CL/CD feature on Statshark.
It’s pretty close. It only needs a slight increase.
It’s not going to make a world of difference.
If you take sim and remove sim controls you are left with realistic battles, not sim
So going from 1.9 available G to 2.5+ is insignificant in your eyes? A roughly 25 percent increase in available lift at low speeds is insignificant?
The plane is modeled with a maximum lift coefficient that is likely only 75 percent of what the designers say it attains.
The whole entire flight model is deeply flawed.
no truer words have ever been spoken. Surprised no one in there was tryna argue against it, quite nice to see for a change
I just noticed the premium su30 is at the same br as base su27 for sim
Wild.
The Chinese Flanker that has ARH and MAWS is the same BR iirc.
tbf at least that thing still has spo-15, so it’s kinda fair, trading some situational awareness for the ability to know exactly where and when any kind of missiles are fired at you.
Though I still think all of the fox 3 flankers should be at 13.7 anyways
That’s why you keep sim and fix it. But I do like the idea of a shorter Air Sim battle with ARB controls and no names over people’s heads.
What source is this from.
Article written by Sukhoi engineers iirc. I also have RU source stating Su-30 max CL is around 2.4.
Right.
Any primary sources? With plots
Does it matter? You are just going to keep moving the goal posts or failing at understanding documentation.
The CL chart in the manual shows a CL of 1.6 at 20 degrees AoA. In-game it has a CL of approximately 1.3 in game. That’s basically 20% less lift than it should have at that angle of attack.
I’m really not.
All I’m saying is they should have it match the G V-N chart.
You compared the 2 it’s underperforming by about .5G in the average instance.
Assuming you used the correct weight and everything. It needs only a small buff in lift at low speeds.
.2 Mach is like 1.9 G in game where it’s 2.4-2.5 IRL.
That’s only .5-.6 G difference from the expected value.
It’s missing 10,700 KG of lift for this given condition.
At higher speeds it becomes more accurate.
Now for my favorite plane it’s missing around 7257 kg of lift for any given AOA. Considering my plane weighs 7257 kg (16,000) lbs at its rough combat weight it’s missing a whole G on average for any given AOA.
Now it has the ability to use the nozzles to increase ITR. They will add 1-1.5G on average for any speed where 60 degrees of nozzle angle is achievable.
Since the nozzles in game add maybe .3-.4G at 60 degrees.
We can see that the missing lift when VIFFing is in the ballpark of 40,000 lbs.
At higher speeds the plane completely over-performs in terms of turn performance.
But this isn’t the Su-27 thread or the “why matrixrupture is browned in sim discord” thread.
This is also not a Harrier thread.
