Su-27 is more maneuverable at speeds up to 650-700km/h
1 Like
The fulcrum is the worst 4th gen in terms of dogfighting ingame (idk about the f14a), you can win against the average kid who stole his mom’s credit card to rush the american tree but that’s not saying much. Unless you want to play with It as an interceptor it’s not worth in my opinion, like i said i’ll just wait for the flanker to see If It behaves better in air RB.
2c the Viper should perform better and 1c the fulcrum should perform better afaik, it’s just complicated to transfer these characteristics to wt’s RB mode.
no. H=1000m Mig-29 Sustane rate 19 deg/s F-16 19 deg/s
Mig-29 13000kg F-16 22000 pounds
You are right the about the Fulcrums requires a traditional skill in monitoring your angle of attack in the heat of combat because a computer will not do it for you and you may be cutting your turn rate short with the additional drag, though your turn radius seems tighter
Many people wonder why their turn rate is not historical or nerfed, most often it’s simply because they are pulling too much on the stick.
This however is not technical or historical.
The Mig29A had a higher thrust to weight than the F16C Block 50 since day one.
The pair of RD-33s still has a higher thrust output than any that F16 up to the Block 70 (do not know about the other variants). Closest thrust output is the Block 60 which is still short by a few thousand pounds of thrust.
Both aircraft are designed with same high alpha dogfighting performance and the exact technologies, but both drastically differ in design priorities due to the assigned role.
Yes, you are right the F16 is speed dependent and energy retention is its main trick and the perfection of flight and BFM the FBW computer.
However, the Viper does not have the turn radius of the Mig29, it does not have the alpha capability like the Mig29, it does not have the thrust like the Mig29. It does not have the climb like the Mig29. Neither does the Viper have any high off boresight capability, and one of the deadliest close quarters IR missiles designed specifically to further enhance the multi-dimensional threat of the Mig29 in a close quarter engagement.
US Doctrine to SOP is to simply maintain range and always avoid the chance of a close quarter engagements completely with any Fulcrum.
It does not matter what the airspeed the F16 maintains in a dogfight because it will never outpace a mig29 in a rate. Because the Mig29 does not have to engage in a rate in the first place and can simply shoot vertical and immediately drop the nose down on someone due to its supermaneuvrability. specifically, the ability of to execute angles of attack beyond maximum lift. The F-16 is not capable.
Unfortunately. the Mig29 cannot quite perform as it’s known to and recorded of doing. Imo, the physics in game too are still off in regards supermaneuverable capable aircraft and gravity and momentum does not assist the Mig29 when you are in maneuvers such as after entering in a high energy climb, idle the engines and pull max pitch and alpha. The Mig29 should be tossed or “summersaulted” with the nose immediately pointed down toward the direction of the pitch or entry of the climb dependent how much input and timing of course.
1 Like
Why every time I have to study more and don’t have time to open the forum for a few days this thread gets like 200 new posts lol
3 Likes
Forgot what the name of the maneuver we kind of can do the Mig29 9-12s and 13s, but not totally due to the physics of the game.
It’s called Herbst maneuver, an air combat maneuver that uses post-stall technology such as thrust vectoring and advanced flight controls to achieve high angles of attack. Though categorized with Pugachev’s Cobra, which is popular at airshows, the Herbst maneuver is considered more useful in combat. Additionally a note, Soviet design philosophy heavily emphasized that high alpha, supermaneuvrability was critical in defense against the long-range, precise radar capabilities of NATO, specifically the US and the ability was a necessity in radar defeating techniques such as notching.
The Mig29 is capable but must induce a stall like any other supermaneuverable aircraft to achieve such angles of attack. It is actually very similar to the maneuver that unironically @MiG_23M showed me a while back but requires a more vertical 90° entry and exit in order to increase a direct, imminent point of stall because the game actually makes real stalls so difficult to point of impossibility and you can be left sitting there floating. There is no momentum either to assist you.
Additionally, we must dump a lot of speed before the point of pitch and angle of attack because the game is also currently designed to limit alpha based on Airspeed/Mach number regardless of 4th generation airfoil design and insane thrust to weight ratios of the engine.
The maneuver was very effective in a 1v1 against the better rate fighting F-16 with limited alpha and Gs that used to simulate the performance of what an FBW would allow at X airspeed. Because the F16 is not designed for high alpha performances, and it cannot generate alpha beyond its maximum lift like the Fulcrum.
Unfortunately, that was before the G limiter removal of the F16.
I haven’t had the chance to 1v1 in closed attempt the similar maneuver against the F16 and also had not had the opportunity in many fights either in RB to use its either. It can be done more successfully in the 9-12, 9-13, and G, not the SMT. The SMT gets stuck hanging at peak of the J-turn and is a sitting duck while loaded with any actual munitions and fuel. So, I avoid the opportunity further.
I thought you had stopped posting bs… first of all you keep bringing up that i want the MiG-29 to be an F-16, which, for the last time, IS NOT WHAT I AM FUCKING SAYING.
Right now both the MiG-29 and the F-16 are pulling more than what it’s good for them, as unless you are dogfighting turning without losing a crap ton of speed is the priority, and both the F-16 and MiG-29 bleed TONS of speed right now.
This is the reason why the current instructor favours planes that in real life didn’t pull a lot of AoA (like the non MLD MiG-23s), they won’t be forced to turn in a way that is inefficient for them.
And also the instructor is literally A FUCKING FWB, that takes the imputs from your mouse and adjust it to move the aircraft in a specific way, that’s literally what it does. When you fly any plane in the game with the instructors you are flying with FBW, which with mouse aim forces you to pull a particular AoA at a certain speed, no more no less.
And here is the most hilarious thing about
all of this: you go on a rant about how i need to learn to manage AoA and blah blah blah…
Now explain to me how to manage AoA (aka ability to pull less than the maximum AoA the instructor allows) in a practical way when using mouse aim, and if you find a way bring proof of it (which is something you seem to struggle with 99% of the claims you make). And before you say that, negative elevator tapping IS NOT pulling less AoA, and is far less efficient than a constant lower AoA pull.
Obviously this problem doesn’t exist if you have a stick, as I said with full real controls there are no problems and the flight model of the MiG-29 is perfect.
You seem to not be to happy about my bug reports? I wonder why… is it because the “not an UFO” F-16 got changed?
Just cope kid
5 Likes
I’ll try to do some tests on the SMT this sunday if I manage to find some time.
SMT pulling a bit less AoA even at same weight should be normal if the elevator is the same one the MiG-29As have, as it probably has a more forward center of gravity compared to the other MiG-29s.
1 Like
DEAD WRONG.
The Mig29 is capable of pulling angle of attack beyond maximum lift and why it is literally classified as supermaneuverable.
It is not doing that in game and modelled. Where is it pulling sufficient angle of attack beyond the maximum lift and to what degree? Supermaneuvrability traits are not modelled in the game as that would have been the first things you dudes would have thrown in my face had it been.
The Mig29 is underperforming period
No. C.G Didn 't move forward
If your reports call for more instructor limitations on an aircraft (the Mig 29) that is not limited historically and technically designed to operate free for most combat effect and you did not at least seek the general consensus with the community first to see if that is even the kind of fictional freak of a Mig29 is desired. Yes, I have issue with it.
The F-16? Why do people think I have a biased position in favor of the F-16? I literally can have any jet of any nation and I probably played the SMT twice as much have.
I changed my position of the F16 after further research. I do not just if ignore people’s comments on the aircraft without looking into it. I already stated it should not outperform the Mig29 in any close quarter engagement other than climb during BFM due to more aerodynamic slick design and computer regulated alpha and energy management of the fbw.
The F-16 is still a UFO regardless of if the slightest change in performance occurred. It did nothing to its overall combat effectiveness in Air RB or the real issue, its ability to pull a large portion of its alpha throughout the entire envelope of transonic flight and even supersonic flight. Let me know when you get the F16 to be limited in the alpha and brought down to remotely comparable numbers of to the Mig29 SMT that still unless proven otherwise is classified as supermaneuverable.
My dude… I already know you are teenager, and probably still have your parents make doctors’ appointments for you. Calm down.
You don’t use mouse aim. New to air RB? Sounds like it.
We use the keyboard and quick successions of multiple taps just little burst at a time. Some veteran players and old, long gone content creators would not even use the mouse at all to fly, but only for aiming.
It’s called mouse aim for a reason.
Where they find you?
The problem is that in the current game there’s no way to make such improvements regarding aoa management with mouse aim, keeping more restrictions on the mig instructor would actually be better for now, unless they add more mechanics in the future but i’m pretty sure they aren’t currently planning anything.
Are you kidding us? Is the source, which describes all the nuances of the engine and the nozzle, secondary? Sorry, but you and the developers have the same disease.
The original source says that TWR at M=0 and H=0 is equal to 1.14, which contradicts the Zhukovsky curves from the same source. How do you explain this? Or the fact that the source indicates the thrust values of an already installed engine?
Maybe it’s because the source is a textbook that makes such mistakes, and it’s worth using sources that describe everything more accurately?
Ok? Mouse aim is not the way to limit alpha anyway.
The aircraft can be flown entirely by keyboard and that is how we limit alpha. The very small, quick succession of inputs of the keyboard have regulated alpha for years. You must have freelook enabled to slave full control to the keyboard, so it will not conflict with the mouse aim and allows you to keep eye with the mouse. You release free look to aim.
Many players of old flew this way.
The mouse is generally used for aim, Hence the term MOUSE AIM and maximized input in case of emergency like you got ambushed or avoid crashes. The keyboard is used for precision flying.
I find it absolutely shocking that some of these dudes. I cannot say this about Mig because he knows about the very controls of the game available for precision flying. But some of these dudes are submitting reports for models we all invested into one way or the other and have no clue that we can fly entirely by keyboard and compete in the highest levels entirely with a mouse used solely for free look, and aiming.
No wonder everything he has suggested so far entails somewhere down the line a requirement of the instructor to further guide or regulate something
We utilize all aspects of controls for whatever given purpose. Keyboard and mouse. We do not fly the aircraft entirely with the mouse and aim at the same time lol. **The jets must perform like total crap if all you fly is mouse aim exclusively.
I am glad that this was revealed to him though, it will just mean further precision if future reports.
You purposely ignored this part:
While you can actually limit max AoA when tapping keys a bit, it is still FAR less efficient than a smooth continuous pull that would be achieved if you could regulate how much the instructor pulls.
So in your opinion doing supermaneuvrability stuff is more important than good energy retention in a normal air RB match… weird.
I think you probably misunderstood what I wanted to (still deciding to do that suggestion or not) suggest: I wanted to suggest a system similar to what @Grimtax had said: regulate the AoA that the instructor pulls like you do whit variable geometry wings. That way you can adjust the AoA pull without needing to resort to very inefficient methods like keyboard tapping (again control surfaces will be always fully deflected the moment you type the keyboard, it will never be like a smooth stick regulation, it’s not a matter of skill). If I had to choose between more AoA and more energy retention I would still choose more ER, but if I am going to suggest/report something I would suggest an instructor rework.
Because you were STRONGLY claiming it was not an UFO before it got fixed and seemed to try to do everything to convince people my bug report about it was BS.
Untrue, the changes imho did have a noticeable effect. I used to get killed a few times by F-16s doing a 180 turn and catch me by surprise as they were still going over 1000kph after it… none of that happens anymore.
The AoA they are pulling is good but is whit in the 25 degree maximum allowed, so it is not really over performing. If you are suggesting that the base AoA value for the instructor in the F-16 should be lower than the MiG29 since the max AoA of the MiG-29 is A LOT better then I agree with that. Imho F-16 should have a standard pull of about 15-16 degrees while the MiG-29 should stay at 17-18 degrees, while an adjustable instructor would fix the problem entirely.
I wrote the post before I read some of the later posts you had made. I apologise to you about that.
The fact that I am a teenager but still able to do some (at least it seems) decent bug reports means you should be more than capable to do the same, or at least be able to support some of your claims with actual proof. Especially when you were claiming the USAF said F4 parts could be used in MiG-23s and then you provided no proof for it it was quite the show.
2 Likes
Also I never submitted any reports about the instructor… the only thing I did was a bug report about the MiG-29 low speed turn rate (got fixed), and then a report on how the F-16 was over performing in sustained turn rate (also got fixed for the most part).
I never said you did
Only your verbal suggestions entails instructors guidance and limitations. I have not had the time to look at reports other than what Mig has shown me I believe that if I did, it was briefly. So, I cannot make an opinion on it on. Other than what has changed in the FM. It had no significant effect in bringing down to earth performance of the F-16 from what I can tell, as well as feedback from F-16 diehards. However, what it does prove right now without question is that you have an ability to generate and implement change. Congratulations there, actually.
This is only in reference to verbal conversations I had directly with you. Nothing beyond.
You’d be surprised when you find out the majority of players now don’t even know what free look is, let alone elevator overrides
1 Like