They are not completely historically accurate ???
1 Like
This bouta be an event aircraft watch
Don’t even bother, he just likes to disagree
1 Like
4 Likes
This Would be a great counterargument, except for the fact that the ER’s got placed on the Mig-29, which arguably changed the way the aircraft was played more than the 73 ever would have. It turned the Close in turnfighter to a long range missile jouster.
Not to mention the Elephant in the room
The Addition of the ER’s caused the jets performance to go up SO MUCH that gaijin nutered its airframe as a response, permanently altering the aircrafts intended playstyle just to compensate for a missile.
The Exact thing you are advocating against
5 Likes
@Prestonesto10
R-73s would make the aircraft 13.0 - 13.3, we already see this with Mig-29G.
R-27ERs made the Mig-29 12.7 from 12.3.
That’s the difference.
Gaijin doesn’t change airframes for balance, ever. Next you’ll say Eagle Dynamics balances aircraft by changing airframes in DCS.
Oh but they very much do, not in the way people think. Gaijin Holds Different aircraft to different levels of Scrutiny and accuracy. The mig-29 is a perfect example of this, as it is being held to a higher standard of realism than most 3/4th gen jets in war thunder, and it has been kept that way even after they have refused to do the same to many other jets.
For a better understanding of what i’m talking about, I’d go read this: Many top tier aircraft are overperforming in energy retention
by Giovanex05, He can explain it better than i can.
6 Likes
Thanks for proving they don’t.
Not only that but the thing you linked to is just a showcase of alleged inaccuracies which has nothing to do with your claim.
Mig-29 performs extremely well.
The 29 performs horridly, I believe it’s missing some nose authority and it bleeds speed way too quickly.
“Gaijin doesn’t change airframes for balance, ever.”
Also that’s just… wrong lol.
3 Likes
@The_Bishop
The Mig-29 bleeds as much if not less speed than an F-16C currently, which is to peoples’ knowledge accurate.
Afterburning fuel consumption is accurate, flight performance is within charts.
What now that Su-27s were all fixed people are trying to claim Mig-29 can out-dogfight Rafale and F-16A?
Add R-73 to 9.12 and 9.13
Remove R-27ER from 9.12 and 9.13
Leave at 12.7
And maybe un-nerf the FM . At 12.7 having only 2 useful missiles is unacceptable.
3 Likes
R-60M + gimped R-27R against overperforming AIM-7F is a good Iraqi air force simulator.
Problem for this proposal is the missiles in question are gimped, R-60 can never pull 30G, and R-27R is missing kinetic range.
Well and the flight model is nerfed.
And the AIM-7F/M have much more impulse than the real missile does at 20,000 feet.
And they’re overperforming.
1 Like
Not really, Fs match in performance to several flyouts we have in a range of situations, with/without a maneuvering target from time of flight rangine from barely out of burn to 62s. At 20kft. Quite closely, enough to be surprising
You’d be surprised how the guidance of R/ERs differ from IRL to the point of doing stuff it would never able and lack of the Hail Mary phase if you launch between 2 certain distances.
Available impulse is 14425 kgf with (I’m told) 61.2 kg propellant.
The boost stage has ISP 257 in this data, sustain has lower ISP, because of excessively low thrust at altitude, and is the bulk of the impulse.
And if it must overperform to model sustain stage drag reduction then implicitly all missiles should have more than real impulse. But we know this isn’t the case.
And? Performance is matched, which is what matters.
We only want C to equal 1. Doesn’t matter how we do it, 5-4, 1000000-999999, cos (18pi). Either will give us 1 and thats all that matters
Sure the thrust value is bigger, but then again to KEEP the performance you’d need to reduce drag and dunno what other stuff. That may affect turn performance positively/negatively and it’s harder to model. So why complicate yourself when the missile hits quite closely to the specified TOF of the maneuvering target shots? They can’t model it with the RL thrust values due to reasons, engine limits or other stuff I have no clue.
Its not just the sustain drag reduction. Again, time of flight of the shots were from 17s(from the moment of pickle to impact) up to 62s of time of flight. That range gives us plenty of information where boost drag reduction would be predominant to one where it wouldn’t.
It’s just some petty rivet counting, huge amount of effort reworking just so it looks correct on the datamine and from 5% to 4% closer to real life. Way past the point of diminshing returns.
1 Like
Your argument is the status quo is fine, don’t need to match DLZ or have consistent modelling.
Thanks for the opinion
They do. Thats what the “current model matches several missile flyouts” sentence means…
2 Likes