I use the original source the most that is
1 Like
I never came to a conclusion from in-game experience. Always tangible testing. It’s simply unnecessary to fly it that much in air RB when the issue requires precise and specific conditions for testing instead.
I’d like to see your disparity in action.
Why? You think in-game experience does not matter?
Yeah well, I hate to break it to you chief, but Gaijin is not looking for what you think about the latest Datamine report, nor do they care or that you flew around in circles in test flight and go around larping as a scientist in the study of combat aviation who even has an assistant.
They care about player feedback based on their experiences playing the actual game and the models they create. I too will always regard a person who actually plays the models they talk about.
Most model changes that occurred in WT were generated by player feedback and their experience. They monitor win rates etc and monitor the matchmakers etc.
I do not recall any improvements ever occurred because some dude who has tools to datamine, conducts sterile test and wears a labcoat said so. My apologies, I meant to say, “tangible testing.”
It’s not relevant to the point of discussion. You want to compare the performance of two differing modifications of the same jets FMs? How it does in air RB is irrelevant.
You want to show a discrepancy in the performance, I’ve shown you the variables that are causing any discrepancy. I’ve asked you to show me the underperforming roll rate or AoA. Any proof of the discrepancy. You haven’t done so.
Why can’t you discuss anything without veiling insults? Gaijins not looking for anything, when a discrepancy is shown in a report it’s forwarded and fixed. They don’t fix these based on hearsay and personal opinion.
This is entirely false. Gaijin doesn’t fix FMs based on personal opinion or in-game efficiency. They fix them per reports showing tangible proof that they aren’t doing as valid source material dictates.
Maximum cap, please reference my bug reports.
Here are three examples;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9GTye85vKeO8
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/WaAKkG8tTPbW
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OLiLWCU6c4tU
1 Like
yeah, and just like that, too, closes.If after the edits the technique will be OP as the MiG-29 cut off 1600 kgf of thrust
Umm yes it does. It’s a game, and a highly competitive one at that. How it does competitively makes ALL the difference whether a model is ever buffed or nerfed.
How the Mig29 did in air RB upon first release was literally the reason we have the R27ER.
Changes are made depending on how a model performs in game first and foremost. Then you can screech about the petty little variations of alpha and stability all you want.
No way! Alpha was so slightly altered not having any combat effect in game and 99% of all possible competitive situations!
I am sorry, I meant to say drastic changes. Oh I did.
The F-16 still smashes my guy, thank you though.
This thread is going to hit the 10k post limit and be 90% arguing.
Please remain civil the thread is a much more enjoyable read when its good discussion and not a pissing contest with sly jabs at each other.
8 Likes
why make a forum if it is limited to 10k messages?
As there is always a limit
I thought we were getting somewhere with the center fuel tank but I guess the differences my boy sees are not significant or worth taking a look.
I will kick back for the limit and others feedback in the SMT dillema.
why isn’t he 100k?
Who knows something to do with how all of this stored i guess
To find out the available overload of two almost identical aircraft.You need to split Clift at a given angle of attack to Clift for horizontal flight
Clift horizontal=mg/qS
q=roV^2/2 or 0.7atmpressure*Mach^2
1 Like
I do believe we are getting somewhere with the center fuel tank though. If current lack of performance is related directly to the center fuel tank in the spine as this guy here just admitted it is.
I believe it’s worth investigating by anyone who feels the SMT is lacking. Because the SMT is never flown full (by me) and I sometimes take 20min and let the drop tank take me to the fight. Dogfighting occurs at around 15min.
Question.
If a Mig29G has 15min and a Mig29 SMT is 15min fuel, who has the remaining fuel stored in most aerodynamically appropriate places? Who is also carrying the least amount?
The SMT. Because wing tanks are always filled last and consumed first to maintain the center of gravity of any aircraft and the G lacks an internal capacity in the spine. Additionally, the SMT is actually carrying less fuel than the Mig29G when at the same times.
That is because the Series II is a more economical engine and allows us to take less fuel while maintaining the same fuel times. Why should it still suffer in performance to such a degree having fuel positioned in a better place and carrying less fuel than the G at the same times?
We already so far established that the Mig29SMT can very well be lighter than the Mig29G by hundreds of kg in an actual game play scenario. However the negative performance exist throughout the entirety of the SMTs flight envelope and only 8min or under does performance kick up. That is far too low in my opinion.
Especially when inferior thrust to weight fighters like the F-18C which has a 0.96:1 but shoots up to a 1.13 with loaded weight at 50% internal fuel.
Yeah totally they do not listen to player feedback or monitor win rates as a whole, or in-game efficiency and the F-104 went from being a 7G-9G max to 11G+ with alpha based on some guy’s “tangible proof”. Sure, ok.
1 Like
There are these three variables, a small change to CdMin, and the empty weight is higher. There is also the addition of a fuel tank in the spine. It appears initially the CoG is the same in-game on all MiG-29s and Draco implies the AoA is the same on SMT and 9-12 models.
The performance is obviously going to be slightly lower. No proof has yet been shown that this discrepancy exists, or how large it is. Earlier productive discourse that got the FM fixed hinged on people sharing in-game testing and not hardly veiled insults.
Ok @Ziggy1989 so I ran more indepth testing with the SMT on min fuel (12961kg) and the 9-13 on 20min fuel (13357kg) and what I found was pretty much just the expected results where the 9-19 does perform significantly better in turns
Is there anything else you’d like me to take a look at?
2 Likes
Excellent.
We know alpha and roll are the same and that is not the issue at hand. It is the speed and very low fuel dependency to reach the same performances I find issue.
Showing me what changed is good, but does not show me when and how any of values take effect in the multi-dimensional aspects of flight and how many times any of these changes may possibly multiply depending on Thrust and Mach numbers etc.
Show me the values the that dictate the airspeeds and which any given obtainable degree of alpha begins or ends. Or what specific Mach number where compression occurs If you can.
If its obvious and you are certain show me were and tell what gives you, the impression slightly lower performance and when does that slightly lower performance begins and ends in the flight envelope.
What proof is there that shows that a discrepancy does not exist? We have not even verified whether the weight being shifted center of the aircraft as opposed to wings when carrying light makes a difference.
You yourself state that the performance is not the weight itself but the center of gravity has been changed. What proof do you have for this statement?
Every aircraft I ever advocated has gotten buffed in the exact ways I declared should be buffed before anyone has submitted reports and always started off as the 'hot take." Hey, Its gotten you looking into it more did it? Its generating a dialogue.
The only one the has yet to be enhanced is the F14.
I never stated clean and I never stated min fuel for either aircraft.
Can you do the 15 min and 4x R73s please.
Additionally, what is spaded and what is crewed?
Your advocation (true or not, unlikely) did nothing to get anything buffed. This is something that requires real testing and not personal opinion as mentioned previously.
Draco has shown the AoA and sustained turn rate are as expected for less weight than previous models. Now you want him to jump through hoops.
I already rescinded that suggestion and sourced my opinions. You’ve provided no evidence for anything you’ve said and it’s being refuted through actual testing.
1 Like