iirc, the 29 does pull the right amount of AoA and rate similar to charts. It may be missing some thrust at low speed tho if I remember correctly. You may ask @MiG_23M As far as dogfighting goes it’s good, rates well except at low speed and has enough AoA to be scary at all speeds.
Maybe in sim it performs better, in RB it’s kinda mediocre
K-77M still in development, not produced, we don’t see final k-77m, only blurred on T-50, and layout R-77 with classic fins on MAKS 2021
We dont know the current state though K-74M2 (now R-74M2) has entered service/production and it was meant to enter service in a similar timeframe as K-77M so maybe K-77M is in service. Either way by the time stuff like that is ready for the game enough time will have passed it’ll probably be accepted officially
1 Like
I have felt that for a while now they need too rearrange the way the Soviet air tree splits. With the way thaings are going, were only going too have one main fighter line despite all the variants, so they should atleast break up the Su and MIG fighters, and like some people have said, make the yak line the naval line.
Since you are probably referring to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxNl5uHASLs&t=2s
F-14 is rating slightly too good (I don’t have the time to do a bug report now thought and any way imho there are planes overperform more than it):
it does 16.36 deg/sec https://youtu.be/bus4lzORTgg at 1524m (5000feet), 300kt and 25228kg (55260pounds), while it should do about 15.5 deg/sec.
Regardless of that, the problem with the MiG-29 is not that it the flight model is overnerfed, the problem is the instructor. With full real controls it can pull harder than the F-14 and basically rate equally (it would rate better if F-14 wasn’t slightly over performing) at optimal speed with 20 min fuel. Meanwhile with the current instructor the MiG-29 is already past the AoA at which is efficient and is not pulling very hard either when compared to what it can.
Also the guy that was flying the MiG-29 in the video was going for R-73 shots that usually do hit normal battles, but even when doing 1v1s with a friend I felt countermeasures were kinda stronger on custom battles (nothing to back up this last thing I said, could very well be wrong), which meant he was not flying optimally for a guns fight.
Edit: 20 min fuel for both is also a bit unfair towards the MiG-29 as a fuel level. MiG-29 consumes MUCH less than an F-14 at lower speeds (it only burns more when going fast as the rd33 thrust curve is very aggressive), and, even with same time (for example 15 minutes on both), the lower the fuel the more the MiG-29 is going to improve on the F-14, as it will be losing an higher percentage of what was his previous total mass (which means bigger improvement in thrust to weight and bigger improvement in centre of mass position)
5 Likes
cool info, i completely forgot about the instructor.
there is no such name as KR, there is simply K
(9-41) or (9-41R)
It’s been fixed for a bit now, the way you tag me makes it seem like you’re speaking for me and using me as a source… No bueno
The MiG-29s are as accurate as they’re gonna get for now imo, gaijin needs to better model post-stall and deep stall behavior for fighters with more relaxed stability margins and then it would be 100%.
As of right now, the areas it suffers are irrelevant to normal gameplay outside of maybe some aerobatic performances only doable in the video game (but not useful in a fight).
1 Like
F-14 wing sweep in game is more forward than irl with automatic mode… I don’t think it’s overperforming. iirc we looked into this in the past but I’ll take another look this weekend.
1 Like
Thanks for the insight. I’m in no way citing you as a source but I’ve seen that you and Giovanex seem by far the most knowledgeable on the matter in this topic.
I do appreciate your work guys, you all did great at improving the game.
There should already be a bug report, (alongside a number of others, which have yet to be actioned but relate to various utility features: AoA Indexer, which fuel tanks should (not) be self sealing, Fuel Totalizer math, etc.) about it from way back when the F-14A was on the dev server, I don’t remember if it was ever actioned.
The source used was the F-14A Utility Preliminary Flight Manual, but in short there are two automatic Wing sweep Schedules, Program One that is optimized for acceleration(Specific Excess Energy), and Program 2 for “available G-loading”.
Hi, not sure if anyone else asked about this before so I figured I’ll do it. Shouldn’t the GSh-30-1 have access to HEFI-T? I’ve been digging around and according to Yefim Gordon’s book there was an option for the ammo. (source attached)
Yes, good take, and they should remove tracer from AP-T (make it just AP)
1 Like
The more I look into this fighter, literally every source from the Western perspective and Eastern experience as well as allied nations experience with it and regardless of myself personal distaste for Mikoyan failed platforms.
The Mig29 is a perfected dogfighter especially for its role.
There is also no legitimate reason at this time that any other brand new Mig29M nor K. (Hear me out)
it is also why all sources point out that upgrades were so few and far between and if any thrust enhancement was carried out, it was recently far down the production run history.
The simple reason the Soviets saw was, no need.
I agree as well because that thrust was so efficient that output did not need to be upgraded even in the SMT with the soviets knowing the of additional weight. It is GJ that still has yet to appreciate aircraft with such capabilities as a 1:1 thrust to weight.
The Mig29’s RD-33s possesses of the highest rated output performance and qualities and directly played a part in defining standard 1:1+ hallmark technologies that make up the 4th generation as only this fighter and the F15 had this performance since prototype and the first batch of serial production deliveries rolled of the line and was second only to the F-15 for years.
To put in perspective, even today those performances are of a capability that many nations struggle to reproduce in their own domestic designs. The countries that can actually design and develop similar high-performance engines are few and have only obtained the ability such as China very recently.
The RD-33 possess thrust to weights far beyond peer fighters such as the F/18C which sits at like 0.96:1 which by the way is said to go up to a 1:12:1 on 50% internal as well as the Su27 with a 1.07:1 with 56% internal fuel and a 0.91:1 with full fuel.
So how the hell is the SMT not performing? As I never dare get in range of a dogfight with 20min and up.
I have not verified the Su27.
But we know it’s a massively larger aircraft made of the exact design philosophies and Technolgies in the Fulcrum, yes, it is aerodynamical perfected and FBW guided, but with a lower thrust weight which carries 3x the amount of R27E variants. What makes any of you think the Fulcrum which has a 1:09:1 from the gate is going to be affected this pathetically in WT even less than 50% internal fuel not have the same effect on the Flanker?
What makes any of you think the Flanker will not suffer like the SMT? This is why this needs to be addressed and heavily scrutinized, the ridiculous idea that upgrades will completely take a Fulcrum to under the level of the weaker powered fully fueled/armed block 10. The SMT literally has no say in a 1v1 vs the F16 of any variant. The fight is completely in the F16s hands at the moment, and it is not historical.
Over what a fuel probe and enlarged 1# fuel tank that is just slightly larger than previous?? No additional fuel pumps were added iirc? So, where is the weight coming from? the avionics? Analog computers especially of military grade by IBM are insanely heavy if anyone has had the opportunity. Just by switching to digital greatly increases room and weight. Just the fact they switched to MFD is the equivalent of just removing the big ugly television tubes displays completely.
Only reason I do not think we should accept this idea is because it is not historical or technical and if the Mig29 SMT performance remains the same, the Flanker will surely fall as well. In which basic conventional lift in wing and even the entirety enhanced aerodynamic integral design that is still an application in 4th and 5th gen of fighters. The significant loss of roll rate and pitch as speeds far slower than any other Mig29. That alpha is limited in degree but is dependent on airspeed and unlike the Mig29G where there is no limit for alpha that is speed dependent as far as I can tell, and I can pull alpha going as fast as I want (not max) but definitely enough to drastically slow the G down. The SMT has no ability to roll or pull any alpha going the same high Mach numbers as the G.
btw the entire time the G is actually heavier over the two when I engage targets, and nothing is felt ever like it is in the SMT. (will explain)
1 Like
Didn’t know that… regardless F-14 imho is fine as it is, is just the instructor for both the MiG-29 and F-16 that needs a rework. F-16 now that they have their flight model fixed waste too much energy under 700kph because instructor pulls 23 degrees of AoA.
In general instructor will always favor planes that pull less in terms of energy retention.
1 Like
I hope they update their instructors, the problem is that i don’t think there’s a way to report that, it’ll most likely be considered a suggestion.
Anyways, i’m satisfied with the current mig. I’m sure they’ll eventually update the instructor.
Update the instructor? He wants the mig29 to be further limited by the instructor and outright said it. which would allow less alpha depending on airspeed as if the thing has FBW. Completely disregarding what the Mig29 is irl. People are so obsessed with the F-16 they do not realize that they actually want it to be an F-16 and cannot go ten minutes without bringing it up.
That is how the SMT works already and is limited on alpha depending on airspeed as if there is magical FBW telling the jet to disregard your input even though you are yanking aft on the stick as far as possible.
The instructor needs to be reduced as well as true 1:1 capability if we are ever going to get realism out of only of the very few aircraft to be supermaneuverable that are not TVC assisted.
Being an integral design with excessive lift built in the fuselage itself there is absolutely zero reasons why it would not pitch up like ANY other Mig. I already been through this for years the jet will get updated regardless. However, the rate it gets fixed depends on the discussion and push of the community.
The instructor “favors” planes that pull less? No… it “favors” conventional aircraft that can barely pull alpha in the first place so they rarely lose airspeed pulling as hard as possible in turns anyway, and FBW guided aircraft pull the perfect alpha in maneuvers regardless of if they are high alpha capable. That is literally the point of FBW.
See, that is why you want the instructor to limit the Mig29 as a fake FBW to pull less just as you said previously. Even though its fake to do so. Just get better at flying and not pull as much. Gain some skill and monitor the alpha and airspeed like you are supposed to in high alpha fighters not assisted by FBW.
If you want additional training wheels for your mig29, that is fine. But be clear in stating that in your bug reports.
The amount of available pull already scales with speed. People are asking for less pull at high speed so that it may maintain those speeds easier. It would be like allowing the MiG-29 to maintain it’s peak sustained turn rate at 600+ knots and no further, but below 600 knots it would open up and allow the high AoA maneuvers it is known for. This would harm instant turn rate at high speed, but that’s a compromise people are asking for.
There was also discussion about adjusting the instructor pull on the fly. This is something that Gaijin likely won’t do, rather I’d suggest that the standard MiG-29 AoA limiter be put in place and allow pilots to exceed it by pressing a button to turn it on / off. We can already turn SAS to off, dampening, or automatic leveling in full real. Just allow us to do the same thing in mouse aim with SAS on or off, simple as that. Would solve a lot of these complaints and it would be unique to aircraft that have these kinds of systems. For aircraft that don’t we can model a pseudo FCS or not give it to them at all and leave those flight models alone.
In my own personal opinion, the MiG-29 is fine as-is. It performs as it should according to all available charts that I can find and compare. The instructor allows people to pull a lot of AoA as needed, it works great for me. Any suggestion to change how it is now will be nothing more than a suggestion. Gaijin likely won’t acknowledge it or make changes.
3 Likes