This isn’t the case.
We have all of the full datamines going back years before the MiG-29 came to the game on GitHub.
Okay, so share why you think so? Provide some semblance of proof to go off of.
We don’t report engines name change for this exact reason, it’s worthless and doesn’t actually mean anything.
Saying that the engine name of a plane changed from X to Y while actual changes to the engines values is just missleading
2 Likes
It’s getting the RD-33 Series 3, which itself is just more fuel efficient as far as game stuff goes. I know this because the fuel consumption is being tweaked in the datamine and because tech mods have informed me it has already been actioned when I asked if it was already reported.
We may not see all of these changes instantly, but we can see some things are already modified.
It literally is the case
Also it would be nice if you could stop taking our works as yours
3 Likes
That’s literally just a name, it could never be changed, or it could but the value also could never change
It’s not because X plane has the engine NAME changed from A to B that the actual engine changed even the slightest
3 Likes
I’m just forwarding what I know, I’m not the one who reported it. The name should change as well as the values, not sure if the current values are the final change but I can inquire about it.
You shared with me the tool and knowledge of how to do the datamining. I appreciate it, but it’s not like the file data is yours.
1 Like
Actual proof that it’s performing worse than it should would absolutely convince me, but I’m not asking you to convince me. I’m just asking you to prove your point. You can’t because you don’t have one.
The name can stay all they want, what matters is what is actually changed in terms of the important things like fuel efficiency and thrust etc. Names in the game is essentially just a guidance not really a reflection of what it actually is.
Regardless, it’s something easily reported and fixed. There’s no harm in it.
Stop fighting. fuel consumption of SMT has been changed because engine has changed to RD-33 series 3.
Spoiler
| МиГ-29СМТ | МиГ-29УБ модерн. | |
|---|---|---|
| Длина самолета, | 17,32 | 17,42 |
| Размах крыла, м | 11,36 | 11,36 |
| Высота самолета, м | 4,73 | 4,73 |
| Взлетная масса, кг: | ||
| - нормальная | 17 000 | 16 000 |
| - максимальная | 22 000 | 21 000 |
| Максимальная скорость полета, км/ч: | ||
| - у земли | 1500 | 1500 |
| - на большой высоте | 2400 | 2230 |
| Максимальное число М | 2,25 | 2,1 |
| Практический потолок, м | 17 500 | 17 500 |
| Максимальная перегрузка | 9 | 9 |
| Перегоночная дальность полета, км: | ||
| - без ПТБ | 1800 | 1400 |
| - с 1 ПТБ | 2400 | 2000 |
| - с 3 ПТБ | 3000 | 2600 |
| - с 3 ПТБ и одной дозаправкой | свыше 5000 | - |
| Тип двигателей | РД-33 сер.3 | РД-33 сер.2 (3) |
| Тяга на взлете, кгс | 2х8300 | 2х8300 |
| Вооружение: | ||
| Число точек подвески вооружения | 6 | 6 |
| Управляемые ракеты «воздух-воздух»: | ||
| - средней дальности | 2хР-27ЭР1(Р1) | |
| 2хР-27ЭТ1(Т1) | ||
| 6хРВВ-АЕ | 2хР-27ЭТ1(Т1) | |
| - малой дальности | 6хР-7ЗЭ | 6хР-7ЗЭ |
| Управляемые ракеты «воздух-поверхность»: | ||
| - общего назначения | 2хХ-29ТЕ | |
| 2хХ-29Л* | ||
| 4хХ-25МЛ* | 2хХ-29ТЕ | |
| 2хХ-29Л* | ||
| 4хХ-25МЛ* | ||
| - противокорабельные | 2хХ-31А | - |
| - противорадиолокационные | 2хХ-31П | 2хХ-31П |
| Корректируемые бомбы | 4хКАБ-500Кр (ОД) | |
| 4хКАБ-500Л* | 4хКАБ-500Кр (ОД) | |
| 4хКАБ-500Л* | ||
| Встроенная пушка калибра 30 мм | ГШ-301 | ГШ-301 |
12 Likes
So MiG-29SMT (9-17), MiG-29SMT (9-18) & MiG-29SMT (9-19) fitted Tumansky RD-33 series 3 engine
I wonder Tumansky RD-33 series 3 better Tumansky RD-33 series 2 ? 🤔
sustained rates for the lighter 29s and the f16s seems to be much closer now
now i just need the mig29m :)
Yeah I need MiG-29M (9-15) too but guess gaijin might consider 2 MiG-29 at 12.7 BR between MiG-29 9-13 & MiG-29SMT (9-19) in rank VIII before MiG-29M (9-15), MiG-29KR (9-14) & MiG-29M2 (9-67) such as MiG-29S (9-13S) and MiG-29SM (9-13SM) or MiG-29SMT (9-17)
1 Like
i’d accept any variant that is lighter like the 9.13 and that can carry archers considering that the 9.13 itself won’t get these missiles
The MiG-29M is not exactly a light fighter-the normal take-off weight is 300 kg less than that of the 9-19 …
If you need a light fighter for aerial combat, then this is the MiG-29SD (9-12 SD)…Slovakia\Serbia\Syria…
Just tested the MiG-29 9-12… LOW SPEED RATE IS FINALLY FIXED. If we must be super precise it is VERY SLIGHTLY over performing now (got 0.05 deg/sec more while gaining 10 meters of altitude at constant speed), but that is well whit in error margin.
F-16 also seems to be rating how it should at slower speed, which ranges from equal to max 1 deg/sec better than the MiG-29. Also F-16A block 10 seems to have stopped pulling 15Gs with mouse aim which was ridiculous.
Now that it got his rate fixed the F-16 imho needs a better instructor more than the MiG-29, as it still pulling 23 degrees AoA but unlike before can’t keep going over 430kph doing so (it is sitting at 380kph now at sea level and min fuel). Just like with the MiG-29 a lower AoA value would help it keep his energy a little better.
Thanks to everyone that helped me with the reports and testing!
8 Likes
Yeah but it has More AOA, more powerful engines with less low speed thrust loss as it has larger intakes and fly by wire controls. It is simply better in everything
1 Like
Does it get the L-150 as well?
it’s us that should thank you for your effort, God bless you sir