why isn’t he 100k?
Who knows something to do with how all of this stored i guess
To find out the available overload of two almost identical aircraft.You need to split Clift at a given angle of attack to Clift for horizontal flight
Clift horizontal=mg/qS
q=roV^2/2 or 0.7atmpressure*Mach^2
1 Like
I do believe we are getting somewhere with the center fuel tank though. If current lack of performance is related directly to the center fuel tank in the spine as this guy here just admitted it is.
I believe it’s worth investigating by anyone who feels the SMT is lacking. Because the SMT is never flown full (by me) and I sometimes take 20min and let the drop tank take me to the fight. Dogfighting occurs at around 15min.
Question.
If a Mig29G has 15min and a Mig29 SMT is 15min fuel, who has the remaining fuel stored in most aerodynamically appropriate places? Who is also carrying the least amount?
The SMT. Because wing tanks are always filled last and consumed first to maintain the center of gravity of any aircraft and the G lacks an internal capacity in the spine. Additionally, the SMT is actually carrying less fuel than the Mig29G when at the same times.
That is because the Series II is a more economical engine and allows us to take less fuel while maintaining the same fuel times. Why should it still suffer in performance to such a degree having fuel positioned in a better place and carrying less fuel than the G at the same times?
We already so far established that the Mig29SMT can very well be lighter than the Mig29G by hundreds of kg in an actual game play scenario. However the negative performance exist throughout the entirety of the SMTs flight envelope and only 8min or under does performance kick up. That is far too low in my opinion.
Especially when inferior thrust to weight fighters like the F-18C which has a 0.96:1 but shoots up to a 1.13 with loaded weight at 50% internal fuel.
Yeah totally they do not listen to player feedback or monitor win rates as a whole, or in-game efficiency and the F-104 went from being a 7G-9G max to 11G+ with alpha based on some guy’s “tangible proof”. Sure, ok.
1 Like
There are these three variables, a small change to CdMin, and the empty weight is higher. There is also the addition of a fuel tank in the spine. It appears initially the CoG is the same in-game on all MiG-29s and Draco implies the AoA is the same on SMT and 9-12 models.
The performance is obviously going to be slightly lower. No proof has yet been shown that this discrepancy exists, or how large it is. Earlier productive discourse that got the FM fixed hinged on people sharing in-game testing and not hardly veiled insults.
Ok @Ziggy1989 so I ran more indepth testing with the SMT on min fuel (12961kg) and the 9-13 on 20min fuel (13357kg) and what I found was pretty much just the expected results where the 9-19 does perform significantly better in turns
Is there anything else you’d like me to take a look at?
2 Likes
Excellent.
We know alpha and roll are the same and that is not the issue at hand. It is the speed and very low fuel dependency to reach the same performances I find issue.
Showing me what changed is good, but does not show me when and how any of values take effect in the multi-dimensional aspects of flight and how many times any of these changes may possibly multiply depending on Thrust and Mach numbers etc.
Show me the values the that dictate the airspeeds and which any given obtainable degree of alpha begins or ends. Or what specific Mach number where compression occurs If you can.
If its obvious and you are certain show me were and tell what gives you, the impression slightly lower performance and when does that slightly lower performance begins and ends in the flight envelope.
What proof is there that shows that a discrepancy does not exist? We have not even verified whether the weight being shifted center of the aircraft as opposed to wings when carrying light makes a difference.
You yourself state that the performance is not the weight itself but the center of gravity has been changed. What proof do you have for this statement?
Every aircraft I ever advocated has gotten buffed in the exact ways I declared should be buffed before anyone has submitted reports and always started off as the 'hot take." Hey, Its gotten you looking into it more did it? Its generating a dialogue.
The only one the has yet to be enhanced is the F14.
I never stated clean and I never stated min fuel for either aircraft.
Can you do the 15 min and 4x R73s please.
Additionally, what is spaded and what is crewed?
Your advocation (true or not, unlikely) did nothing to get anything buffed. This is something that requires real testing and not personal opinion as mentioned previously.
Draco has shown the AoA and sustained turn rate are as expected for less weight than previous models. Now you want him to jump through hoops.
I already rescinded that suggestion and sourced my opinions. You’ve provided no evidence for anything you’ve said and it’s being refuted through actual testing.
2 Likes
I would like to generate results that reflect the average combat scenario each fighter enters a dogfight in Realistic Battles.
To be fair to the G I gave it the same fuel time of 15min (though it is much higher when it sees a dogfight around 25 min) and 4x73s because most of the time the R27s have been launched before entering a dogfight on average in RB.
Or 20min each 4x R73s to make it easy. I can imagine the G not beating the SMT
Also how much alpha were we pulling in the turn test? Are both pulling the same degree? one not higher than the other? One is reported to pull greater alpha and pulling too much will reduce the overall rate.
You stated one heavier than the other, I did that, going for specific fuel numbers (min, 20min, 30min, etc) where one is heavier than the other is much easier to test since fuel mass is constant and testing doesnt have to be done in specific windows to remain consistent
Also clean is intentional for drag to remain the same, the point clearly being the SMT does infact perform better when it is lighter
This cannot be reasonably done for a comparison since R-73s would be more draggy than R-60s
also 15 mins fuel vs 12min fuel is not a big difference and the result will be the same provided the other aircraft is heavier
29 9-13 is fully spaded on an expert crew
29 9-19 has all performance modifications (I only have bombs not researched) also on an expert crew
anyways if you insist 15 mins of fuel with 4 R-73 I can try to accommodate (just know its difficult to test in test flight since the plane is only at 15 min fuel for 1 turn) but if I where to test this the MiG-29 9-13 would have R-60s instead which are less draggy than R-73s
1 Like
We’ve established that with less weight, the SMT performs better. There is a point where this crosses over, and on average the SMT will be heavier.
It is expected to perform worse if carrying more weight… I don’t see why this needs further testing since no obvious discrepancy has been shown.
1 Like
None of these fighter’s face opponents in these conditions though Draco.
Yes, the SMT performs great when its light and clean. Did not think it performs significantly better. Thanks, we learned something.
I will go with the expert crew, but I am Aced in both and crews differ depending on the aircraft and we cannot rule out all possibility that one may have some greater values set than the other just because they are Mig29s but of differing nations unless mig can see those values as well. @MiG_23M Can you?
Thats why the only way to find out what is the cause of Ziggy’s great distress is to simulate the condition each of the fighters are in during a game scenario (first dogfight contact) and compare the two and perhaps we find somewhere it has a greater induced drag or compression or that specific fuel times, weapons in combination of the values mig showed are the cause.
Or yes, the possibility we determine Ziggy is just imagining the whole thing, though many people feel its underperforming in same areas, and we cannot hallucinate the same thing.
We haven’t even emulated the conditions where discrepancy is reported.
So how would you immediately declare no further testing is needed lol.
I’ve already stated all MiG-29s share the same FM with only small changes to the aforementioned values.
What would have been much better for us is if you went into battle and recorded these situations for comparison or gave us proof of a real discrepancy.
We have, ordnance doesn’t effect CoG, only weight. There’s a specific line for it in the code. We know that when one has less weight it performs better. This constant applies across the board for MiG-29s since they all have, for the most part, the same FM. @DracoMindC has already shown you what we need to see to determine your personal feelings about the aircraft underperforming in comparison are just wrong.
@Ziggy1989 did testing with missiles like requested as expected performance gap narrowed a lot but also so did the weight gap (R-73s are a lot heavier than R-60s :P)
new results are with 9-13 at 13533kg, and 9-19 at 13381kg only a 152kg difference now
noted performance differences, the SMT has .2 degrees AoA less at high speed, but also has better energy retention at that speed as a result
SMT performs slightly better in turnrate at both tested speeds tho the gap is much closer now since the weight gap is also closer
overall beyond the .2 more AoA (which was probably the same in the original test WTRTI was rounding back then for some reason) at high speed the results were expected
Is there any further requests?
1 Like
I already laid out the aircraft performs like a mig29 at really low fuel times with weapons, of course it’s going to do even better clean and min fuel. I never even flown the thing clean like ever. That is not the report I made to you Mr. Bug Reporter.
Hoops? When you conduct a scientific study, and a simulation to find a reported issue is called for. You simulate the environment and conditions to the letter and attempt to best match that which was reported to you, after you can begin to rule out possibilities.
When I specifically said obtaining mig29 performance is not the problem, but the fuel times in which they appear are the issue in RB armed with weapons and that I have no such issue with performance at any fuel times in the G or weapons loaded.
That does not mean get in a min fuel SMT and do some turns against another mig29 clean. That is hardly the average Air RB match is it?
@DracoMindC thank you for taking the time and I know it’s a hassle.
So do it, show us. When you make a claim you support it with your own evidence. A scientific study is done by the person making the assertion. No one would have even considered Einstein if he didn’t support his argument.
In this case, you’re complaining and they’re unfounded and unsupported because all testing (from multiple people now) has shown you that there isn’t an issue.
1 Like
I am, I will get the client.
I did not make the assertion but started off literally saying please look into, and urged anyone who feels the SMT is lacking to do so as well.
I have given much evidence from my continual research into the Mig29 and the technologies of the 4th generation and laid out why the SMT should not be affected much at all by weight of upgrades and a center fuel tank. No one has disagreed with me yet, not even you.
My opinion is based off of continual research and game experience just as GJ has designed the model to operate.
You disagree only because I have not provided proof that it is underperforming. When many players believe it is underperforming, they are all around us. Thats evidence. I do not think you know what the definition of evidence is.
That is something you need you learn before you become Gaijin’s next Creation Director and start calling all the shots.
You believe the SMT is fine, but all you have to go off of is a 20 game experience in the SMT at release months ago and your zero experience in game development and a interpretation of files and code that you really haven’t got a clue what each does and what effect they have in combination of each other and to what degree they may multiply depending on fuel capacity, loadout, airspeed, altitude or attitude.
You haven’t provided any evidence that you know what the hell you are talking about when you look at the games code and files and say “look numbers are slightly different, that means SMT slightly perform less.”
How many games have you developed and how long have you been datamining?
You cannot even tell us exactly what each value affects and what conditions do they affect most or multiply during the many different conditions of flight.
What does Multilimit1: 10.1 do as opposed Multilimit1: 1,0 and what effect does it have on the SMTs model flying Mach 1.06 in a dive and RD-33s are min fuel AB?