Then it seems this changes only affects 9.13 and SMT.
İ wonder why.
1 Like
9-12 was also affected, but it seems not nearly as much. Rate times between 9-13 and 9-12 sometimes are perfectly comparable while other times the 9-12 performs much better, but maybe it is just me sometimes doing the test wrong.
As personal perception goes I feel like the 9-12 is less of a speed bleeder in normal airRB games, but again that’s personal feelings.
AoA though is undeniable, 9-12 can pull 60 degree AoA, loses less speed doing so, and recovers well. 9-13 instead does exactly what it does in @MiG_23M video
1 Like
You are not conducting the test proper, all variants land within 47-49 degrees AoA currently.
It’s only for a very short time, but I managed to hit over 57 deg AoA consistently (at least according to local host) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbMBZ5uLy2w
Airspeed is too low, altitude is too low. The test isn’t accurate. 300 knots, 500-1000m should be the test zone.
Managed to hit 51 at 300kt and 640m starting values, but yeah that’s not even close to 60.
Anyway 9-13 can’t do 57 at 100m and 440kph like the 9-12 can.
Adjusting fuel amounts in localhost FM editor nets similar results for 9-13 and SMT if weight is reduced.
Yeah your right… I keep forgetting 9-13 is about 200kg heavier
People will always complain about something, there is nothing you can do.
Best is to ignore it and focusing on dealing with the issue.
Gaijin thinks that the MiG-29 FM is accurate currently, we will not see this fixed. Likewise, they are blaming it on the lack of a fly-by-wire system. This suggests to me they artificially nerfed the FM’s stability at high AoA and are blaming it on a system only later models (or Su-27) will receive.
It’s quite clear, they’re setting the stage to give the Su-27 a correct FM, allowing it to “Cobra” and such when it is added, but not providing this to the MiG-29 so that they have some “stepping stones” from current top tier to whatever BR the Su-27 will be at… and allows them to put the R-73, R-27ER on platforms that don’t perform significantly better than their peers. I hate artificial balancing decisions such as this, and I wish there was more honesty.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1155916828883820655/image.png
According to Gaijin, this is not possible on the 9-12 despite very clear demonstrations of it’s ability to do so at many airshows for several decades.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1155917619086508225/Source_3_page.jpg
7 Likes
Well, I’ll summarize what is happening better…
The F-16 has zero instability and is allowed extremely unrealistic high alpha performance because they are unable (yet) to properly model the FLCS and do not want it to suffer from extreme instability / bricking mouse aiming.
The MiG-29 has extreme instability and is allowed no high alpha because they want to brick it’s mouse aiming and are unable (yet) to properly model the FLCS and don’t want it performing better than anything else in BFM since they have made the decision to give it the R-73 currently.
2 Likes
If that’s the case then we should just bombard them with reports claiming that all the other aircraft that are over performing. Out of all top tier jets the only aircraft that has a similar sustained turn rate to the MiG29 is the F-16 (with the 29 rating a bit better at lower speeds while the F-16 rates a bit better at higher speeds, but in both cases the difference is never more than 1 deg/sec). Since right now the F-16 and other aircraft significantly outrate the MiG-29, and they are so sure that the MiG29’s induced drag, despite 3 bug reports, is right, then every other aircraft at top tier has a too low induced drag
1 Like
THIS
Other aircraft that are not the F-16 are performing fine for the most part. There may be some exceptions… we just have to make it clear we are not stupid. We see what they are doing, and why. Should poll to have them fix the FM and stop balancing things with unrealistic changes and arbitrary choices.
Both F-16 and MiG-29 should have the instability modeled imo, if they want to hasten the pace to include a proper FLCS they should do so.
4 Likes
I know that they are performing fine (as mostly was the MiG29 before the nerf (apart from flaps)), it’s just that they would be somewhat forced to fix the fm if you present them a chart for the MiG29, one for another aircraft, and show them how in game one planes rates worse than the other while in the charts it’s the other way around
There is little we can do, but what we can do… I’m doing…
Will continue testing the FM further and reporting it in smaller areas where I can definitively show discrepancy with the actual flight manual.
7 Likes
Well this kind of balancing decisions are the worst.
1 Like
especially since it affected not only the SMT but also the other 2 mig29s
3 Likes
Agree.
1 Like