could that maybe just mean that I confused the name of the 9.47 with the 9.42?
from what I can find about the 9.47 its exactly the aircraft I described, no?
And I still dont really see any reason to be this toxic, its not like gaijin takes the info on a forum discussion to model a plane (or look at the discussion in general)
Don’t mislead people. The new airframe has the designation 9-41 single and 9-47 double, and then various indexes have already gone.
9-47S
jeez louis man, I get it.
I didnt try to mislead anyone - I had the wrong designation of the airframe.
I did a mistake and im sorry for that, do you want me to do a backflip or something as a punishment?
Yes, a backflip, ahhah
The MiG-29 9.12 had a max AoA of 28°, with 26° being the limit given to the pilots to be safer.
I don’t think the 9.12 couldn’t do 25°
it was a rough estimate.
But its definitly true that the mig in warthunder is much more unstable than it should be.
the maximum AOA without the override is 28°, with the override it should be like 31°
In WT it goes to like 40° even without the override - so its like, what the fuck.
Problem is, those arent rate charts. The chart that i used for the bug report shows speeds at which the MiG-29 can start a turn at determinate amount of Gs and accelerate to a certain speed.
For example:
The MiG-29 should be capable to start turning with a load of 6Gs @ 650km/h and accelerate all the way to ~1180km/h, at 2000m. The video i uploaded proves that the MiG-29 is barely capable to even sustain 6Gs at 660km/h, while losing 100 meters of altitude and being MUCH lighter than suposed (Most test done in the manual have the plane weight 13,000kg which according to my calculations is roughly 82% of fuel, while in the video i used 57%). *After using localhost, 13 000Kg adjust to ~15 mins of fuel
It is underperforming, drastically so.
I might create another Bug report with the updated fuel amount, im pretty sure the one i made weeks ago will just die ignored by the devs and bug managers.
It’s now forwarded for review. Pray hard.
how so?
whats wrong with it?
He made a report on its ACM radar mode being slewable, other than that idk
How isn’t it
Missing ACM mode
Missing air to ground modes
Should provide intercept data for up to 4 targets
Ability to track 2 targets in air to ground modes
Missing synthetic aperture
Missing raid mode
Incorrect search zone
Incorrect radar model
Incorrect radar range in HPRF
Incorrect radar range in MPRF
Incorrect radar elevation
Missing PDV mode:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9FZpEygOgE82
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xumnJSiRTxwM
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/a2vQRCKiiS8g
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RUx6kICKfGLH
Unless I’m missing something it’s already 4.
It does show you the 'predicted position / path of the missile" for 6, but the datalink guidance is limited to 4.
Doesn’t directly translate to anything in the game at the moment AFAIK
Can’t seem to find it in the brochures
The RWS modes seem to match the ±10/30/60 deg
Not sure if they had a source for the ±20/40 deg for TWS modes or if they just pulled it out of thin air
Perhaps you can give it a try and see what they say …
Good find
Should be +56 instead of the current +60
Gonna make a report myself if you don’t mind, as I have three other sources on hand to supplement it
Good find
Seems to be missing a little in range
MiG-29SMT Zhuk-M radar range too low:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/PJnijUdkgENo
Trust and believe ong
