You are not understanding, I am talking about in game.
I take less fuel than the G and therefore it has less fuel in the wings.
Is that how that works? Genuinely asking. How do you know?
I have already done this analysis and in the game the thrust is not correct
1 Like
I’ve already discussed with you, you’ve not elaborated in such a manner that the devs will understand your issue. It’s overlooked because of this. It needs to be explained better.
Even then, I’m not sure you’re correct about this. The devs rebuttal makes sense.
He is trying to say the SMT is fine, I know how the developer’s operate. I haver superior datamining tools. I know this because a tech mod told me, and you are not correct anyway.
That is what he just said in a nutshell.
Developers have already been explained this many times, including on the old forum.but he continues to ignore it
1 Like
No, the devs public reply to his report is what I’m referencing. You have no sources for any of your complaints and you’ve shown nothing to prove they’re valid in the first place.
Sustained turn rates are accurate for the MiG-29. Acceleration is correct. Climb rate is correct. So how is it missing thrust?
1 Like
I did the same report, I realized I was wrong.
If the MiG-29 can’t perform according to the other charts somehow perhaps in acceleration or top speed we can make an argument for missing thrust.
ok, fair enough.
Should the SMT remain as is, yes or no.
Yes, why wouldn’t it? Is there some disparity you can show us with footage of it performing incorrectly in-game?
1 Like
What? that fuel is not filled in the center first? No, its filled in the left wing first, my mistake.
Genius.
I’m asking if Gaijin properly models which tanks it fills first / last etc. Or if it even affects the CoG as I assume it would. I can look into it on my own I guess but I suspect the way you’re interpreting this is wrong.
As far as I know fuel drain doesn’t seem to effect CoG and it’s just affecting total weight in-game based on the file data.
-edit-
Delving further looking for discrepancy with the FMs, the 9-12, 9-13, 9-19 all have the same CoG code which appears to be static. The additional fuel tank and empty mass of the 9-19 appears to be the primary thing affecting performance (but I don’t think it’s really grossly underperforming in comparison to the other models).
These three lines are going to have the biggest change in FM performance between the MiG-29G and SMT besides the weight itself.
Could you please indicate the sources that directly indicate the displacement of the center of gravity with different loading of fuel tanks or due to the design features of the SMT
One would think it’s common knowledge that when making such changes to an airframe you’d adjust the CoG. Especially considering the refueling probe, new radar, additional fuel tank… In this case I’ve proven myself wrong in-game since the CoG (at least empty) is unchanged from the 9-12G in the FM file.
The aircraft may even use a FBW according to some talk I read previously but we lack in the primary sources department. The primary lines of code affecting the FM adversely in comparison to the 9-12 are above. There is also the CdMin coefficient and empty weight change.
At least we are now getting somewhere, but you haven’t played it outside of the first release months ago for 20 games. It would be nice if you can investigate further into this before fully coming to a solid confirmation nothing needs to be modelled.
I never said its grossly underperforming to the other models.
Just underperforming to the other models.
I said its grossly underperforming against any F-16 in a knife fight. Which is not historical.
It is too dominant over the only 4th generation fighter that has a higher thrust to weight and classified supermaneuverable and is the only 4th gen fighter assigned the point defense role and designed purely for the dogfight and specialized in close quarters.
The additional weight of the upgrades is not just acting like normal weight. It’s actually having a degradation on lift generated that is unrelated to normal flight, but specifically on lift generated in the technologies associated with 4th generation fighters that it should not.
Like the insane thrust of the RD-33s and the integral design of the Fulcrum where additional 40% of lift is provided by the fuselage when you pitch up and is not present when you fly level.
The mig29 was designed with such an excessively high lift the drag ratio that it would make sense when someone said earlier (forgot who) that irl the 29 slightly climbs in level flight.
As you know the center fuel tank is always filled first to maintain center of gravity and not hinder the airflow deflection and performance generated in the wings. Also fuel consumption always starts in the wings first. In conclusion, since the SMT is never flown more than 30min (me), Dogfighting occurs at 15min or less. The SMT should actually fly better than the G as not only is it lighter as @DracoMindC indicated, but what fuel it has stored is mostly in the center #1 fuel tank.
Or #7 whatever.
Can you please just look into more, thanks.
Funny. If a developer listens to you, it doesn’t mean that he listens to everyone.
A person is looking for formulas to make an accurate calculation, and you say that you are not sure if he is right.
It’s also funny to hear that a developer is right to use one graph when other data from the same source contradicts it.
3 Likes
Bruh
1 Like
I have played it recently, if you’re gonna quote my stats at least delve a little deeper into how recently it was flown. It’s not even relevant. The flight performance is the same in test flight or air RB.
You made all kinds of claims, you’ve supported them with nothing.
Nothing about the FM or performance suggests anything like this. This is why real testing is necessary. The butt Dyno isn’t very accurate.
Yes, I’ve gone into the FM file and tested it in-game. The changes aren’t that drastic. The flight model performs as expected for such a weight increase and the additional drag etc.
He’s using a secondary source to contradict a primary source. The developers have opted for the primary source.
If there is a discrepancy with the performance in-game compared to the charts in the primary sources, it can be reported. The secondary source on its own is considered less reliable than a primary source for obvious reasons. Don’t misconstrue what is happening here, that’s the response the devs gave.
1 Like
Test flying does not matter, you cannot rout out issues and determine something off by test flying.
Because the model is part of an actual game and interacts with other models.
Changes to you look minor on paper, but may have a worldly effect when placed in the infinite number of variables in real world application.
This is the same thought process in actual research development in fighter designs. You cannot look at one or two minor changes on paper and say “it has no significant effect.”
Have you ever modded a game? You can slightly change a value in any given aspect of a model and are surprised how drastically different the model performs or looks.
Just keep an open mind or play it for a couple hundred games like you used to play each model.