Better for who… you?
Parity is better for everyone.
Pretty sure the entire community would be better off without the R-27ER.
3 Likes
More like the fact they never carried it
So? How many years will people harp on about historical accuracy when it suits their prerogative when Gaijin have made it clear that if it can fire it = it can have it. Regardless of historical usage.
No they haven’t. Only when it suits them
Regardless the normal R is actually very good. Way better than the 7M
Almost like when it’s used for balancing decisions… I don’t see the MLD with R-73s.
There are plenty of aircraft either missing munitions or using munitions their host nation never even bought for the sake of balance.
I am all for a reasonable argument but at the end of the day, WT is a game, not a true to life simulation. I understand there is a bias in that you want to have something powerful and no one else but even a child can realise why that is wrong.
You could give the MLD the R-73s and move it up, would be better for everyone as well.
I would rather they add the MLDG with HMS and R-73s and keep the MLD at 11.3
Yes i wait the mitsubishi f2. Intresting the blk50 and barak2 blk40 come to live servers and the f2 (modded blk40) is not.
And when anyone fly at low alt the r27er go trash. + the migs radar get some nerf and gone very nochable
The MLD is unique to the ML, MLA. They could add the MLA to the Russian tech tree and move the MLD to 11.7-12.0 with R-73. No reason it should be hindered so and not given the ability to properly utilize the additional AoA.
3 Likes
If they add “MLA” (unofficial name) to the tech tree, premium ML will be supposed to lose its R-24, as currently ML’s radar has to be changed to Sapphire-23mla or lose R-24. Better variant to add MiG-23P in tt. And if MLD is moved in br it also could receive R-24RM.
Only this
Datamine shows MiG-29SMT is getting RD-33 Series 3 with improved fuel consumption.
Also seems to show improved Oswald efficiency for flaps on all MiG-29s by a value of 0.01 which I guess may be the slight adjustment discussed before? @Giovanex05
5 Likes
wow finally took them long enough
1 Like
AND PEOPLE WERE GOING CRAZY WHEN I SAID IF MIG-29G CAN GET SERIES 2 SMT SHOULD GET SERIES 3, COPE HARDER now ameriboos and teaboos. Finally thank god. Thank you for telling us about the datamines O7
3 Likes
Thats nice, where you finded the datamine? Im having some difficultes finding it right now would you mind sharing it?
are the changes live?
Spoiler
It may be the adjustment @_David_Bowie said but the report was done without the use of flaps, so it shouldn’t be it.
Also I don’t think they are using one Oswald efficiency number given that the Lift/Drag ratio of the MiG-29 (according to practical aerodynamics itself) differs quite a bit from what an ideal quadratic + constant equation, and wouldn’t be accurate at all for a simulation. Not to mention that the thing changes with speed.
On the left there’s practical aerodynamics Cd to Cl diagram and on the right there’s what Cd to Cl looks like when using only one Oswald value (indicated with W in the right chart, chose it so the 2 charts would match at Cd=0.1)
(for anyone wondering the function displayed on the right doesn’t look like a quadratic parabola because it is actually the inverse, since the chart in practical aerodynamics is Cd to Cl and not Cl to Cd like the equation you will find on wikipedia ( C_d = C_{d_0} \cdot \frac{Cl^2}{\pi \cdot e_0 \cdot AR} )
Edit: forgot to explain: the 2 functions look similar but, especially at higher values of Cd, differ quite substantially (Geogebra’s one achieves Cl = 1.3 at 0.28 Cd, Practical aerodynamics one achieves the same only at over 0.46 Cd (aka much worse drag))
1 Like