I am not concerned with how it performs in regards to other aircraft in-game, I am only reporting historical discrepancy in performance / capability.
In this case, the instability and unrecoverable spin qualities are the issue I am most concerned about. And I don’t think it will be much more “OP” since at the moment the SMT can’t even go toe-to-toe with a Mirage 2000.
But historical discrepancy always comes last to how aircraft perform in relation to its competition. That is how GJ operates. Balance supersedes all.
Even in the case that they make it perform how it should, it is severely outperformed by the F-16 (all variants) currently so I don’t think that this comment is true. “Fixing” the MiG-29 would not make anything more or less balanced.
Well the SMT is a much heavier airframe with heavier missiles and not supported with a powerful fly-by-wire computer.
You can say “oh FBW is not modelled” all you want. The actual physical computer and module is not obviously. But its characteristics are and why it can rate as good as it does in WT.
Additionally, when you fly with instructor we are flying with a fly-by-wire concept and program. When your wings auto sweep in the Mig23M they are artificially supported by a computer that never existed in the real-life model.
Again, if I can pull a 4:1 kd in this current meta not even flying it exclusively. ANYONE can. Especially if they fly it exclusively.
Well, unlike real life we have no concern for airframe longevity and the MiG-23 was more than capable of going throughout the entire speed envelope at 45 degree sweep so this is not a serious concern.
I’m not certain if the SMT used a FBW or not, I’m reporting on the original 9-12 and 9-13 MiG-29s which also struggle quite heavily against the Mirage 2000. The by-product of them fixing the 9-12 and 9-13 is that the SMT might be remotely usable because at the moment a single hard turn can send it into unrecoverable spin conditions.
It’s good you learned something from when we flew the original MiG-29 together.
Yes, you have taught me many things and tactics for the Mig29 and that are key to a high KD in it.
Like vertical performance over attempting to rate everything.
But the SMT is not your average Mig29. Its better flown as a NATO fighter and western doctrine of being a standoff platform.
I agree, I just don’t want it to go into spin conditions in sim when I have to tighten down at the top of a vertical loop or whatever. It makes it very hard / dangerous to fly the SMT without putting severe limitations on how hard you pull the stick on occasion. It even said clearly in the TsAGI paper that these conditions do not develop from sudden pitch excursions, rather from sustained AoA beyond the limiter where oscillations cause the instability.
Thats what I keep asking and looking for data on. Because if it did, it should have better rate performance. Even just a minor assisted FBW
Well, technically the original MiG-29 used a computer to control the aircraft as well but not a full FBW. Simple pitch / roll / yaw was still analogue and the aerodynamic devices such as leading edge flaps, some degree of roll control from the elevators were adjusted throughout flight depending on AoA, etc.
Likewise the MiG-23MLD should have the same flight control improvements as the 9-12.
I am hard pressed to believe that the SMT would not have upgraded software when the whole entire jet had a refresh in all its avionics.
Regardless, Gaijin stated they did not want to model the F-16s instability until FBW stuff could be better modeled… but over-modeled the MiG-29s instability causing it to be very hard to control in dogfights while F-16 flies around at 40+ degrees AoA without any issues. This is a double standard in favor of the American aircraft.
When I reported the F-14 similarly to what I’ve done with the MiG-29 (using video evidence, studies) they fixed it right away. F-14 can do nearly 77 degrees AoA / Cobra lol. They’re holding the MiG-29 back.
Iduno. I do not play sim and you know this. Remember I play solely RB with training wheels.
So, I believe it’s best to treat the aircraft as two completely different models in each game mode instead of allowing others to conflate the two because they are not happy with their performance in RB battles.
People will cherry pick your model reports in Sim and use that as justification why the RB flight model should be augmented even further.
Both FM’s are the same, instructor is dampened so mouse aiming isn’t bricked. Regardless, the devs know the distinction and adjust both accordingly.
The plane is far from being trash, the r73s are pretty good, the radar is excelent and i think we don’t need to say a word about the r27er, it’s just that it’s not working how’s supposed to… It just feels ugly and strange to an aircraft that was well known irl to be an absolute wvr monster rating like this. If their main reason for bricking the mig29 was that they didn’t want the plane to be the best WVR and BVR vehicle ingame at the same time i’d rather lose the r27er and get it’s fm fixed than to keep the missile and the bricked model, idc if it’ll get a worse winrate, i just want my baby flying well. But that’s just my opinion idk what you guys think, the fulcrum is my favourite aircraft and i got very sad the day they changed it’s fm.
Where were they promised???
GAIJIN loves USA this is a known fact. Not that they shouldn’t , I just do not like double standard
Iso_gate dev replied directly to my bug report stating they were going to increase the pitch-up AoA to ~60 (from 49) and reduce spin tendencies.
Should result in nose attitude in pitch-up of around 90° (Cobra) and subsequently less instability in yaw / roll + pitch scenarios above ~30°.
what about the drag? the drag changes is what killed the MIG-29 the most in my opinion, making keeping speed impossible. Right now it is like flying a FW-190D13 with full fuel, never turn , go straight, as if this is a F-104 lol
Looks like drag and lift coefficients are accurate at and below ~30 degrees AoA. Not certain the flight performance beyond that is correct.
In air RB you’re not likely to go above 25° AoA so this isn’t really a concern there. Sustained turn rates are accurate at optimal speeds (maybe underperforming at low speed)… not sure it will get much better without a full CFD and study on the aerodynamics of the aircraft by a company such as NASA as I had used in my report for F-14 AoA.