in reality, 11.25 is already the destruction of the structure, plastic deformations have occurred on 11.Re-entering such an overload would destroy the structure. this applies to all aircraft when the overload limit is suitable.in addition to the MiG-29, he has a slightly different situation.You won’t tear off the wing even at 15G.It will break down in another place
I understood the little boy with the candy. you just don’t want the F16 UFO to be taken away from you like candy from a child and come to insult everyone on this topic without normal discussion
@dragonflaine71 ^^ This is what I mean. The F-16 gets a flight model buff and the knee-jerk reaction is that it’s a UFO and needs to be nerfed. Yet when it comes to buffs for the mig29, suddenly it’s just good honest gamers who want things to be realistic? Yeah ok lmao.
So they ADDED a G-limiter, and as a consequence the F-16 can now pull more Gs than it did before?
What part of that makes sense to you?
according to GJN there was a limiter, and the limit was increased.
Can you not just admit you were wrong for once, instead of always doubling down on the stupidity?
F-16A — the maximum overload limit by the instructor has been changed to 11G when using mouse or simplified controls. Reduced the longitudinal stability at low speeds, and added angle of attack and overload limiters for SAS in “damper” mode at full control.
Every aircraft has a G limiter, my original argument was that it was never limited to 9G. In fact, it was exceeding this drastically and they then revised it down to a realistic amount (~12-13G?)… it’s been lowered even further.
The full real performance of the F-16 was always overperforming in stability which I’ve been trying to report for a while now, even prior to this update. As stated above, it was supposed to have reduced longitudinal stability at low speeds but this was clearly not something “fixed” in the update as seen in my subsequent report.
Whether it’s over / underperforming is irrelevant. I’m just applying the same standard to both since Gaijin wanted to favor the US equipment in this case.
Likewise in the past I tried to help fix the F-14 engines being too hot, they wouldn’t, and I had reported (and raised) the MiG-21/23 series engine temps subsequently to hold them to the same standard.
Yes, just use this thread to talk about the MiG-29… I will try to make a bug report with what I have already posted above and see how it goes, although they may just label it as “close enough” as the difference is only 0.5 deg/sec… unless Ny actually means only the horizontal component of the G pull although it’s unlikely.
Then we have to look at the Roll rate and imho the idea of having the ability to select a lower maximum AoA for the instructor should also be considered as a suggestion to the devs, maybe after spreading a bit the idea on the forum, as it would help many other aircraft and especially the French and Swedes
The F-16 and the MiG-29 are not that far off from each other in a rate fight. (unlike what it is in war thunder right now).
here there are charts (image no.8 and 10 in particular) for both the F-16C and MiG-29 at sea level with the MiG29 also having a bit more fuel time (2100kg fuel for the MiG29, 2452 pounds (~1200kg) for the F-16. ). Sustained turn rate difference is never bigger than 1 deg/sec until MiG29s G limit becomes 7.5 (but we are far from optimal turn rate at that point).
Won’t post charts directly as some guy said they may not be allowed on the forum because they are too modern, and I don’t want any risks.
There should be also charts for maximum turn rate (not sustained), and the MiG29 should have the advantage here, but in game the F-16A right now is pulling inside Mirage2000s…
You keep throwing slurs and insults like it’s remotely helping your cause…
The aircraft still had yaw / roll control with no airflow possible over either idk what you mean. It’s also full real, instructor for air RB doesn’t even let you go to departure conditions in most cases so that’s totally irrelevant to my report to discuss air RB performance.
You keep saying 90%, 99% of Russia fans are asking for ridiculous stuff… where are they? Certainly not in this thread.
Most Soviet mains I’ve encountered on the forum are quite happy that now they have their unflarable missile and wouldn’t trade the R-73 and R-27ER to have the right flight performance on the various aircraft, while I and many others in this thread certainly would.
It’s way more satisfying to actually fight and gun down people where your R60M doesn’t connect than to have a thrust vectoring missile doing the work for you
As nice as it would be to allow other potential ordnance for test flights or custom missions but not air RB… I’d like to do some 1v1 dogfights with HOBS missiles.
Well, ping the shills and make fun of them. Stop harassing the hard working people doing the hard work to keep the same standard held across both sides of the pond.
I’ve also got no reason to be biased towards Russian equipment. I’m probably one of the most pro-American people you’ve ever met but you haven’t so much as asked. You just read my name and couldn’t bother making ridiculous assumptions.
