FeetPics said he was gonna make a report on the Flankers since apparently they’re turning too well.
1 Like
turing to well overall? or was it the highspeed related over performance
1 Like
All he said was “They turn too well, that’s it”.
Probably the high speed performance, if I had to guess.
Which is true to be fair, but no surprise, other top tier jets are eating nerfs an entire year later, like the recent Rafale one.
There’s a bit of overperformance in every jet, some remain more ufo’s than others, luckily FM isn’t always everything.
1 Like
I wonder how well the EF is performing compared to IRL.
I know it’s got great flight performance irl, but I find it hard to believe the in game version is accurate.
Well I saw the Italian Euros irl two times, and that thing moves.
I don’t know how well or bad compared to WT, the only thing I know is that with aoa off the game engine allows you to pull redbull stunts that would be a flat spin IRL, but many jets pull that nonsense.
Spoiler
Fun fact, I also heard a loud and clear Eurofighter sonic boom over my hometown, happened in 2018 after a french airliner entered italian territory with comms off, and got intercepted. Sounded like a big ahh bomb lol.
Here’s a video on YT of the exact one:
https://youtu.be/vV3m_VHq4tU?is=AWSprqDzgDteWiCL
1 Like
It underperforms quite amount iirc.
For example high altitude supercruise capabilities doesnt even match but according to Gaijin its marketing lie.
Also its not just flight performance but electronic/countermeasure systems also underperforms a lot.
1 Like
You know what I noticed? The MiG-29K’s 9-41 (RD-33K) thrust is listed as 8800kgs in all famous sources (like Jane’s magazines) , but in-game it’s ~8550kgs (108% thrust, without engine overheating). The MiG-29 9-12’s (RD-33) thrust is listed as 8300kgs, but in-game it’s 6700kgs. That’s why the 9-12 is inferior and less dynamic, while the 9-41 has become the best MiG in-game.
Double standards in the settings of the RD-33 engine of different modifications.
Yes, but that’s not important. What matters are the thrust numbers themselves. That is, some engines have losses, while other aircraft, even if a different modification, do not have these losses.
the RD-33MK produces 9 tons of thrust
and the more modern Migs (29M and 29K) have a differnt intake design resulting in lower thrust loses
“have a differnt intake design resulting in lower thrust loses” Can you tell me how the developers calculated the exact losses for the 9-12 and the exact losses for the 9-41? Why is the loss percentage MUCH higher in one case than in the other? I will never believe that the developers modeled the air intakes of each aircraft and ran them in a virtual tunnel to calculate these losses.
yes becasue i know what the devs do
because i have more insight than you do
surely i know exactly what went through the heads of the developers when making the mig-29k
2 Likes
I mean yeah.
Mind reading is a basic requirement for posting on the WT Forums.
1 Like
Yeah they calculated it from engine thrust chart from mig-29 practical aerodynamics manual
Poorly calculated since the dynamics of the game 9-12 do not match the manual. The game model accelerates more slowly than in real life.
9-12 with 80% fuel remaining accelerates 600-1100kmh in 16 seconds instead of 13.5 in the WT.
1 Like
This is fair for like 95% of top tier aircrafts in the game. But then again. You can’t really project brochures onto real life (this is fair for EVERY AIRCRAFT), brochures give the most, let’s say, optimistic numbers.
We’re in territory where most actual data’s are highly classified, its either good enough sources or they shouldn’t even kept doing it.
This goes for every other vehicle that is fallen to the same category.
Then we can trash pretty much everything higher than 9.0
Especially USSR stuff, because Soviet Union never made stuff publically available - it simply destroyed all documentation after equipment was replaced.
1 Like
Actually??? That’s such a shame.