crazy how that logic applies to the F-16 and its 9g limiter xD
so much yapping against that
the problem really isnt the 9G limit, its the AoA while in manual control which allows the f16 to pull up to 50+ AoA in a highly stable fashion - which is literally impossible irl as it cannot actually pull more then like 26 or something and if it did have a way to disable this limit irl it would be extremely unstable going above this due to the design. Not nearly as much of an issue in rb where everyone is flying in dampening(what the instructor limits are), but in sim its a massive issue cause a ton of people are well versed in using manual controls there. So, in sim you have this ahistorical change to the combat dynamics of aircraft where the f16 is drastically more oppressive, because in manual it can easily win 1 circle fights even against primarily 1c fighters and then also dominate any 2 circle fights.
It’s something that’s been brought up constantly, but unfortunately gaijin refuses to do anything about it until they are able to properly model a fcs which can properly simulate control for unstable aircraft and then also be compatible with the instructor for RB. I mean the obvious quick fix would be to simply disable the f16 from entering manual control in the first place but gaijin is not willing to do that because reasons.
8 Likes
The F-16 in real life could not exceed a certain pitch rate and G load for a given AoA or it would depart. A pitch-out departure is violent and quite difficult to recover even when the FBW is functioning properly.
Gaijins flight model allegedly can’t handle unstable airframes without bricking mouse aim due to instructor. Due to this, the F-16’s instabilities and departure qualities aren’t present and it can exceed flight parameters that would have caused departures in real life.
Realistically, this doesn’t have much to do with the G limit… But it does when AoA and the acceleration of the maneuver are accounted for.
4 Likes
It’s simply a Deep Stall & every single aircraft on planet earth can enter a Deep Stall. It is not modelled in game for any aircraft by intention.
This was told to you by staff in your failed attempts to nerf the F-16A C & D.
Love the theatrical explanation of a very simple & extremely common aerodynamic phenomena that affects Cessnas you can buy here in the states with as little as 12k USD. Keep up the work.
Now it would be nice if you could turn 180 degrees from mach, and end up going faster than 500kmh. It’s difficult to fight back with fox 3 when defending takes so much energy you can barely turn to notch, and then recommit on the edge of stalling out
3 Likes
On the real. I absolutely agree, it would make the aircraft a true 13.0.
Defensive flying is still very much non existent. lol I am resorting to using horizontal axis to fly a co tang 60 degrees from the opponent with my radar pointed hard right so I have a chance to detect dudes without fleeing for my life & dying if they detect me first.
Lot of work just to live in a very modern equipped MiG-29 when no other aircraft has issue turning around and still being above the speed of Mach Jesus. Waiting for the M I guess. Even though the SMT has a more modern zhuk radar iirc…
I never thought in a million years I would ever be worried about a MiG-29’s ability to turn. It’s a literal turn fighter as stated by staff.
But people are hyper focused on the cobra question. I rather it be able to turn, then not cobra. Really all MiG-29s do not turn much after the first turn, especially the SMT. The Mig-29 has massive thrust to weight full fuel.
1 Like
That’s not what was said, nor is it true.
What do you think a departure is?
The F-16 pitches out of control & disappears into a Black Hole never to be seen again??
If a plane stalls at “X” AoA & speed in real life, it should match that behavior in-game. If the aircraft cannot stop its own pitching moment due to pulling too much AoA, it should be modeled in-game. That’s super duper simple logic.
Instead, the aircraft can pull twice the vertical rate and AoA that was physically possible without departure that was possible irl.
1 Like
I asked you a simple question.
What do you think a departure is? If you do not know.
Just say so.
Super Duper Simple Logic, he says…
This response means you do not know, but need to pretend you do. As if anyone cares whether you do or do not.
Here, go ahead & pretend you read it.
Deep Stall - A deep stall trim situation where application of full nose-down control will not generate a nose down moment & provide recovery from high-a conditions is very undesirable characteristic for combat aircraft.
A current configuration that exhibits deep stall behavior at aft c. g. locations is the F-16. Although this airplane incorporates an angle of attack limiting system, it is possible to defeat this feature & enter a deep stall trim condition.
For our Russian speaking comrades :)
What you described is known as a DEEP STALL. All high-performance aircraft can deep stall. Some have very low probabilities. Some have very high probabilities. It depends.
Stop pretending the F-16 suffers from some unique catastrophic design flaw. I guarantee you that the more you make stuff up to push an agenda & a personal vision of how these models should operate rather than objective fact, the less your reports & opinions will be taken to heart.
Over explaining stuff and asking dumb questions to make yourself appear smarter doesn’t do anything to debunk what I said. The F-16 is overperforming as I’ve explained it is. The devs didn’t implement deep stalls because there are few aircraft that have them. One of them is the F-16. It can do double the pitch rate and AoA required to cause such phenomenon in real life. This is what overperforming looks like. Do you deny that it overperforms? There is hard data that shows it does.
1 Like
A source you cannot deny is over explaining? You say I provide no sources. Now I am over explaining?
Is this the equivalent of mansplaining?
What was dumb about asking you, “the expert”, what do you think a departure is?
Again,
I am giving you a solid heads-up.
Take what you will from that.
This is a 100% ok & reasonable opinion to have & I do agree to a certain extent.
But do not intentionally mislead the community as if the F-16 suffers from a unique fatal flaw because a report was not accepted. This phenomenon you describe can happen to any other fixed wing aircraft. But does not in game either, you would then have to force GJ to model all forms of Departure Stalls & Deep Stalls across the board. Each aircraft having their own unique conditions. This would do nothing for game efficiency but rather just redundant work for the developers.
Because other aircraft are much less aerodynamically controllable in high angles of attack. How would you even address those? They don’t even have FBW. You would ruin a number of aircraft.
Say goodbye to the Mig-21, the thing cannot exceed 7Gs without departure alone last time I checked. (7Gs is amazing for an aircraft of 1955 btw.)
The Kfir has no ability to control the insane degrees of alpha that are demonstrated in game.
The J-8? (it’s been toned down a little since release, but still). The list just goes on…
Spoiler
I believe staff did a smashing job managing the reports & explaining the situation in detail multiple times. I believe the dev team did an amazing job balancing the FM. The F-16 is a great aircraft & should be in War Thunder.
With that said, the F-16 FM appears to be non-negotiable for the time being. It is, what it is.
Instead of crying over spilt milk (as the saying goes, relax), we can find other ways to solve your frustrations regarding the F-16.
Spoiler
By looking for ways to increase to Mig-29’s game efficiency in the FM & convince GJ that the R-73 is the rightful missile for the 9-13 & it should be returned. The current 9-12A’s too if we are that upset about it, why not.
You’re over explaining something that is already understood in an attempt to make yourself appear smarter or more knowledgeable. Nothing you posted contests my point.
I never called myself an expert. You don’t need to be an expert to read charts with instructions attached and then try the same thing in-game.
It’s not a flaw, it is a mistake. It benefits from this oversight. Gaijin has chosen not to model the FLCS, but they’ve acknowledged that it overperforms and they don’t wish to change it until they fix their instructor. Currently the instructor can’t handle statically unstable FM’s.
It’s not crying, someone mentioned the F-16’s 9G limiter as an example of something that doesn’t follow the trend I mentioned. I pointed out that the F-16 is an outlier due to the current FM situation so it doesn’t count.
You came in and made some nonsensical arguments and so far haven’t actually backed them by anything. Instead you’re using this as some opportunity to continue arguing with me without cause.
1 Like
It’s not a buff, it’s whats should be from the start. But it’s useless, because r-77 suck ( but not the worst, worst it’s a derby/darter )
2 Likes
Please refer to the following.
Spoiler
You are well within your right to believe GJ made a mistake. You are also well within your right to believe it is an oversight.
However, GJ did not chose or refuse to model the FLCS. They explained in detail multiple times the challenges they currently face in which you refuse to acknowledge nor understand.
GJ has zero obligation to explain themselves, especially to you, but did so anyway as it is the right thing to do.
All models overperform to some degree & underperform in others. Game efficiency trumps all. You know nothing. The F-16 was also limited in ways to offset this “overperformance” you constantly complain nonstop about, how your report was not accepted therefore you attempt paint the developer in an unjustified negative light.
All you can do is hyperfocus & fixate on the obvious because at the end of the day, you neither play any of the aircraft you talk about nor understand how game efficiency & balance is the number one aspect considered in WT models before anything.
Hope this information helps.
My mistake & apologies. I meant to say a realistic & historically needed buff :)
The Zhuk is a very capable & advanced radar produced by the RuF.
The R-77s are a little lacking at moment, I agree. But keep faith, the update just dropped & developers are making their rounds & implementing QoL fixes.
(I cannot speak for the Darter, nor the Derby. I know nothing of their performances other than I was under the impression that they are pretty good.)
Spoiler
BTW The N001VP or known as N001VEP (E for export) is also capable of better performance & is not a copy paste N001 Mech. I hope the Su-27SM is updated soon because I got to say, the copy paste N019 Rubin (still shows up as Mig-29 on RWR, the Mech has a different transmitter) performance is not cutting it against even the smallest radars of NATO at top tier.
Such as?
I’ve already addressed the rest of your rant, now you’re repeating yourself (again). I think you’ve drug this far enough off topic as-is anyway.
None of your business. Just play the game. This is the Mig-29 topic. This is not the F-16 cope center.
I already told you, instead of blaming staff that the F-16 is a mistake & oversight (it’s absolutely not). What you can do is work to improve the Mig-29 & its variants to cover this gap. Or not, it’s totally up to you.
Btw your F-16 games are looking for a little light… many have more games in just one variant than you do in your entire fleet of F-16’s combined. You should try to actually play one of these days & maybe you can see that it’s not so overpowered as you say every update since its Apex Predator’s release.
Lastly, you are under no obligation to actually play the vehicles you purchase (however odd that may be). It would help out a little bit in understanding why models perform the way they do according to game efficiency.
I already have been working to improve the MiG-29. You have not. You’ve done nothing but complain and even then the basis from your complaints is literally just your opinion. You hopped on the bandwagon.
You’ve not once referenced the flight manual or any relevant sources. You just claim nonsense about a 90° AoA cobra and ironically - the AoA is already adjusted correctly. The issues lie in specific excess power & some other parameters.
I have, and still do play all of the top tier fighters. You learned how to play top tier from me. Stop asking for attention.
You’re literally telling someone with 16,000 hours to play the game more to develop an understanding of it… it’s comedy.
3 Likes