The lack of community backlash about this is bizarre. No one seems to really be discussing it much outside of a smallish community of people who happened to read this thread. When they’re being especially intransient and dishonest, Gaijin only ever seems to get dislodged by a large community backlash, and for that awareness needs to be spread more effectively/pervasively
4 Likes
Most people care only about how easy is farming kills with planes. Even big YouTubers like Defyn spoke about this, but most players, especially USSR mains themselves, are just happy they got their op missiles they can easily get kills with and call It a day.
1 Like
@MiG_23M, I don’t quite get what is going on here. Is it that they can’t model some properties of the flight control system, so they first try to match the aerodynamics as closely as they can (from a purely physical sense, not considering the instructor/dampener) and then try to model the instructor/dampener, but they can’t do that as well due to limitations in their modeling.
OR, is it the case that they try to match the flight performance (taking both the aerodynamics and flight control logic into account) by adjusting both the aerodynamics and flight logic to better fit the final result, even if each of them individually doesn’t get the best possible match?
I’m a USSR main and I’m pretty much completely uninterested in flying a Russian Federation MiG-29, especially if the ‘selling point’ is a weapon the MiG-29 had on service entry in its most basic models. All I want is some genuine attention to balancing with a mind to historical loadouts because it just feels bizarre to use these weapons on platforms I don’t associate with them at all. As far as I’m concerned Gaijin can keep their R-27E on Soviet MiG-29s. They can keep their R-60M on the MiG-23M. They can keep their R-13M1s strewn ahistorically across damn near everything the Soviets used or exported, and they can keep their R-24s magically mounted to a MiG-23ML. I’m tired of them adding an ahistoric weapon to a plane to ‘balance’ it and consistently refusing to redo the loadout and rebalance the plane around what it actually used. It’d be like uptiering the F-4E to 12.0/12.3 and giving it AIM-95s, it’s not that it’d be unbalanced, it’s just…why? Why take it away from how it actually was actually employed, and the opportunity of anyone actually interested in the plane to play it as such, in favor of this bizarre balancing model? I hate everything about it.
2 Likes
I am not qualified to answer this in detail compared to other people in this thread but from what I can tell the answer does not fit into that dichotomy and is much more problematic
This almost seems like the type of info that would gain traction on other communities (r/Warthunder for example) if posted in a clear and concise manner… especially with how much the said moderator/employee in question has been criticized on various platforms as of late…
r/warthunder was also my thought but I’m banned from Reddit and so can’t interact
The tech moderator himself is not to blame. They have nothing to do with whether these reports are passed, denied, etc unless the user just had insufficient sources to begin with or wasn’t clear on what was being reported.
In this case, Bowie is copy / pasting the dev response and reason for the report being shut down. Nothing more or less.
I really don’t actually know why it’s so difficult to model. It seems they’ve modeled the F-16 and MiG-29 in opposites…
The F-16 has too high AoA with no obvious instability. IRL it’s flight control system was REQUIRED to limit the AoA to less than 25 and could only exceed this if fooled / aircraft was stalled with high nose attitude… it did this to avoid departure from controlled flight as the aircraft was impossible to recover otherwise.
The MiG-29 on the other hand was designed aerodynamically stable but with instability during sudden positive load above 14° AoA. The aircraft would recover from post-stall maneuvers quite easily. This allowed the pilot to gain necessary AoA whether it be for gun shots or launching a high-angle off-boresight missile. They wanted the pilot to be able to recover easily without issues.
In-game, the opposite is true of both aircraft and we’ve yet to be given an explanation as to why they refuse to model the adverse aerodynamic qualities of the F-16 as they have with the MiG-29. @iso_gate
3 Likes
What about the speed bleed? It seems quite excessive compared to other aircraft, especially the F-16.
3 Likes
The speed bleed makes it unplayable for me. The only thing it’s decent at is flying in a straight line through hostile airspace with periodic CM on and slinging R73s at all aspect targets (decent in the same way shooting 6 phoenixes is decent at getting 1 or 2 lucky kills)
- it’s not fast enough to escape safely like a BnZ fighter
- cutting afterburner to flare an IR is a death sentence
- making one turn below mach 1 is a death sentence
- climbing is a death sentence
I understand the logic behind the nerf but this FM is not viable in 16v16. It needs to go down to at least 12v12 on EC or 8v8 on small maps to be competitive.
2 Likes
I see, but regardless this is most disappointing despite clear evidence to the contrary with a lot of research to back it. Hopefully enough people notice this issue and maybe something can be done, lest the devs retroactively add the proper FM when the vehicle is no longer relevant.
They butchered one of the top tier for no reason while making what I think is the most bullshit FM (f16) I’ve ever seen in 10years in WT, even the barak 2 is better in a dogfight than any of the 29, F16 and MiG-29 FM are relevant of how Gaijin wants their games to work and I am utterly disappointed, MiG-29 especially 9.12 and 9.13 are in a strange position with the atrocious FM.
1 Like
I’m probably lost in translation, but the R-60M is absolutely historically correct on the MiG-23M. The only thing about the MiG-23M which is unhistorical is the flare module, but I think that is an absolute necessity at that level.
There is a lack of community backlash because everyone hates USSR and think’s it is OP for some reason , and American players are the most lucrative. They want to see the MİG-29s broken like this so they can have an easier time.
3 Likes
The fact SMT weighs more, and has as much thrust as a Phantom <800KPH isn’t the best.
A full fuel MiG-29 weights approximately as much as an empty F-4E, not sure where you got this from.
(Not to mention all the aerodynamic improvements, and better thrust to weights associated).
2 Likes
Absolute infuriating that my favourite aircraft got artificially nerfed, it completely killed my hype for the SMT. I don’t want a su27 in December as an OP beast, i want to fly a correct mig29 model, won’t be touching this game until they do so.
9 Likes
I’m certainly not flying the MiG-29 until it’s fixed.
I will still do test flights and such to do testing… but I’m not flying it at all in matches until there are fixes.
4 Likes
Thrust, not thrust to weight. Thrust to weight is closer to 600 - 700KPH. Cause boy oh boy RD-33s don’t like those slower speeds.