I’ll find it later -it was in Markovsky’s book somewhere…Now I’m busy with poor Merkava-4-it’s known where…In the USA , with a height of 196 cm …about 105 kg…- but this is ideal!..
Spoiler
Never mind what I said about the F16 FM, that report is over with and failed to accomplish its objective, closed and declared fixed. Not a UFO.
The F16 FM is here to stay especially for Blk15+. The only thing do can pray for is a better Mig29 or they give us R73s for the German Mig29. Which will greatly even things out. OR Su27 of course. However, the Flanker will not do much in a knife fight, too big.
We need an enhanced Mig29 especially when more F16s come. Like the one @ZVO_12_INCH & Bliz showed us. I would not mind if they went all the way with the 35 personally at this point. then again I want to try the German Mig with R73s first. That thing is going to be great.
I think they’re still going to do the fix but not for now as they said that it’s a bit complex to solve, i remember reading somewhere that if they did the changes rn with the current aspects ingame it would completely brick the mouse aim… Anyway, only time will tell, we can only hope that they’ll do their job.
1 Like
The results in the table you provided seem to follow closely the one in figure 6.14, but for an heavier (?) weight, as at the end of tables there’s written “13000kg” while 6.14 is for 1500kg of fuel, so around ~12500kg as written in previous posts.
1 Like
It’s over with, the F16 is final, and we need to push for the Mig29 FM not nerfing an aircraft the Devs do not agree is a “UFO”.
the F-16A is final. Especially Block 15+. The dude who opened the ticket stated it was “acknowledged”, but failed to tell you that it was immediately closed and declared fixed. They did nothing to the Blk 15 + FMs. All they did was reduce F-16 block 10 stability and will make stall departure some way harder but not make the aircraft suffer from “rapid and violent departure” lol as he was attempting push.
As beautifully explained by @_David_Bowie
“This is for F-16A block 10 with small stab area. F-16A blk 15+ has increased HTP area, they has positive stability margin at any AoA and free from any of the report issues with stability. It has now stability margin same to blocks 15 because the mouse aim degradants with reducing stability margin below 0, but now it should be more safe for mouse aim, will be reduced to nearly-neutral.”
“We will reduce F-16 block 10 and F-16AJ stability and will make stall departure some way harder, but it should not be like “pitch 50deg → rapid yaw-roll movement → and fall to flat spin state immediately”, initial stalls must be recoverable in first 1/4…1/2 of initial turn, this is normal thing for most planes. Deep stalls and spins require much larger amount of time for recovery, but initial stall always requires not more than 0.5-1 turn for recovery. This should be fair for F-16 too.”
“AoA-G limiters are working now for SAS-damper mode and limits roughly AoA ~27deg and G+9.5/-4.5”
The flanker outperforms all aircraft at low speeds
But its big Broski. A big, beautiful target with solid radar locks facing multiple F-16s is going to be a challenge.
We need a smaller higher thrust to weight fighter.
I say the most advanced Mig21 and enhanced Mig29 will suffice. The Su27 cannot do it alone.
Now that I can test the F-16A, I did the tests I had asked I did the tests I asked you if you could do like a week ago… F-16A is rating far better than it should… only thing that is holding me back in doing a bug report is to be sure that the F-16A rate chart you can find online are fully unclassified since for the F-16 it’s literally like walking in a minefield finding stuff fully published that can be shared outside the US
2 Likes
I agree its rating better than it should but so is a ton of aircraft. How will you translate that into a report? The Devs are hyper intelligent and know these things. What will be your pitch?
They even knew exactly that the initial report only referred to the Blk 10 in which the individual who opened the ticket intentionally did not clarify hoping they would not catch it and apply it to ALL F-16s.
Devs & mods do not play, they will clarify where you fail to.
That since the MiG-29 is rating accordingly to the charts of his manuals (even a little lower at low speed), all the other aircraft should do that too.
Nothing personal against the F-16: MiG23MLA and other aircraft that right now have BS sustained turn rate should be nerfed too
1 Like
the sad part is that the mig29 rate is apparently correct so we are forced to face a lot of arcade mode jets…
So at least give us AoA so we can get a nose on an launch a missile before falling out of the sky has been my thought.
Yes, its RCS is comparatively larger. Although the MiG-29M would also fit. But there are already 10 missiles on the Su-27
1 Like
More AoA = more shit performance in AirRB. As I had said before the MiG29’s instructor is already pulling too much for its own good in 99% of the situations. If instructor pulled 18-19 degrees AoA the MiG29 wold still turn decently and retain enough energy to zoom around the map like it did before
there is not enough traction up to a speed of 800 km/h
The anniversary patch is known to release a lot of fixes, maybe something regarding this entire situation could change…
I’m not sure this is the issue, as I highlighted before there is a big discrepancy in how efficient the aircraft is at generating lift in the 2 charts (6.14, 6.4).
Well if you manage it and pull hard only where you need it. Like the Kfir. It can rate but if you pull slightly too much you fall out the sky (older Kfir FM. havent played in a while).
I used to dump all my energy to get a nose on and gun people. The Mig29 should be very capable of that. Actually, far better & have the thrust to recover far better.
I rather have the AoA than being hindered by the instructor and still not rate lol.
Have you checked whether it accelerates at 800km/h at 6G at an altitude of 1km