Irregardless, the T/W is much higher. T/W and lift, drag etc are what matter. The overall thrust is insignificant.
Congratz for the “struggle for the mig” tho, i’ve been following your reports for a while. Unfortunately in the end there’s not much that we can do about it as they’ll just keep listing the reports as “nOt A bUg”.
3 Likes
How will the SU-27 be ? Will it be F-16 food like the Mig-29s ? What can we expect?
They claim the issue is lack of FBW, since the Su-27 has FBW expect it to perform with zero instability or issues like F-16 does currently.
Does this mean stuff like MİG-29M will perform miles better? I presume they have FBW
1 Like
If Gaijin doesn’t change their minds again, yes.
1 Like
I’m certainly not flying the MiG-29 until it’s fixed.
Same, I gave it a solid shot spaded and can’t find any niche for it at any fuel level
1 Like
Did they do anything to the SMT today? it feels slightly better or am I tripping?
@EpicBlitzkrieg87 Welcome back, I thought that you forget MiG-29 in new forum but not forget
You guess in the future gaijin could add another MiG-29 12.7 with medium-range active radar homing BVRAAM between MiG-29 (9-13) and MiG-29SMT (9-19) ?
there is no such designation for MiG-29KR. There is simply MiG-29K
in fact, all MiG-29s are configured crookedly, they have a lack of thrust of 600 kgf for each engine. There is no abrupt increase in thrust.
MiG-23 MLA-also no…There are 23-12A with Amethyst radar…while TO and IE on the Russian MiG-29K have not been published, we do not know what it is called!..The authoritative website airforce.ru…denotes so…
they are called MiG-29K product 9-41R
everything is described in the book MiG flight through time volume 2
I know-but there have always been discrepancies in the USSR/Russia names according to Factory documentation and Operational…In this case, we are interested in the official date of adoption and the official designation given by this document…I haven’t found such a Document yet…MiG-29 is an open, not secret name…The 9-41R can be called the MiG-29K (R) in another way, and this will not be a mistake…Although we do not know the exact differences of the MiG-29K_MiG-29K(P)…because the MiG-29K was created by order of the Indian Navy…
1 Like
there was an official document on the web where it was indicated that the MiG-29K should be named without the prefix R
I care not about technical capability but historical relevance. I think the loadouts provided to an aircraft should provide it both with a good fit for its historical employment and niche, and I believe if Gaijin weren’t so odd about this subject and was actually willing to put effort in it would not be hard to combine with balancing/gameplay niches.
The MiG-23M/MF is a 1972 spec MiG-23, and it is the only representative of this generation of 23s. As such, loadouts provided to it should be in line with this, primarily employing the R-60, R-13M, and R-23. This would also provide it with a gameplay niche as a very early but low-capability LDSD capable fighter with more limited capability close-in, but still able to hold its own in WVR against most opponents outside of tactical dogfighters. At 10.3-10.7, this gameplay niche would make the plane worthwhile to play, providing a unique and interesting style of play while also being exactly in line with the plane’s place in history; thus, both people interested more in the game, people primarily interested in the plane and seeing the game as a way to experience it, and those in the middle all have few complaints. Instead, Gaijin ‘fixed’ The MiG-23M/MF and gave it later generation spec weapons, forcing it to a higher BR where its interesting capabilities are instead the standard, and pushing it to both historical inaccuracy and total irrelevance; no one is happy with this, and all for a change from side aspect to limited all aspect capability for two pylons. If they wanted a first gen MiG-23 with late gen capabilities, they should accomplish this with new foldered additions, in this case the MiG-23P, not by destroying the authenticity of existing planes. Giving the MiG-23M R-60Ms is like giving the F-4E AIM-9Ls and uptiering it by 0.7, it’s not the technical capability that makes it a terrible idea, it’s that it makes it both irrelevant to its historical niche and irrelvant in gameplay. As for the KDS-23, I consider it much less egregious than something like the F-5C, and its presence does not destroy the historical relevance of the fighter with regards to balancing in the same way as R-60Ms, so I’m mostly fine with it. However, ideally, for historical reasons, the SPS-141 ECM pod as used on the SMT would be used instead.
As a rundown of how I think a reimplementation of the MiG-23 series should be approached;
Folder 1:
-
MiG-23M w/ KDS-23 or SPS-141, R-60, R-13M, R-23, R-3S, R-3R @ Either 10.3 or 10.7
-
MiG-23Bis W/ KDS-23 and/or SPS-141, R-60M, R-13M1, R-24 @ 11.0, with decomp ideally 11.3
-
- Premium or Event MiG-23P, MiG-23Bis with no ground attack ordnance, no IRST, same BR, and KDS or SPS instead of and/or. Same idea as MLD, as prems are more common at top tier, the standard version is often better suited to the premium status with the more unique one TT, as opposed to the opposite at prop BRs.
-
- Event MiG-23S with R-3S, R-3R, and R-13M @ 9.7 or 10.0
Folder 2:
-
MiG-23ML with KDS-23 or SPS-141, R-60, R-13M, and R-23 @ 10.7 or 11.0 with decomp
-
MiG-23MLD with KDS-23 and BVP-50-60, R-60M, R-13M1, R-73, and R-24 @ 11.3 or 11.7-12.0 with decomp, 11.0-11.3 without R-73s
-
- Premium MiG-23MLA with KDS-23 and if Gaijin really wants to fudge it for the whales BVP-50-60, or just SPS-141, R-60M, R-13M, and R-24 @ 11.0-11.3 or 11.3-11.7 with decomp
This does not include export models in other TTs, or more modern event vehicles than the game is ready for (23-98), but it is what a good implementation of MiG-23 as a plane that is aligned with historical role, interesting in gameplay, and balanced. Many other cold war era planes on both sides of the aisle are woefully misimplemented, and I think most serious families of cold war era aircraft should be reimplemented in similar manner, with current implementation scrapped, burned, pissed on, and player’s investments transferred to equivalents in the new implementation or refunded.
1 Like
I think you ask a bit too much with a correct flight-model in this vehicle action-game. A very nice and entertaining action-game. But that´s it.
I know war thunder isn’t supposed to be gigarealistic but the vehicles should at least occupy the same role as they do IRL, i’m flying a fulcrum and not a goddamn foxhound.
This is the MiG-29 thread not the MiG-23 thread…
Also, the MiG-23M is (aside from J-7E) the single best dogfighter at 11.0. The F-5E has nothing on it for the most part except more usable guns.
There has been a response
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/907139930982080582/1156264418997448714/image.png?ex=651456a7&is=65130527&hm=2e7712d2e4b3d206b487bbb559b38809d74d2077177dd4dd373194c433da78c3&
We will have to continue testing in-game after this fix comes, hopefully it is closer to what is realistic even if they cannot model it properly as it currently sits. Next step in the process is to force them to hasten their plans on modeling FLCS so F-16 stops overperforming.
I’d really like them to explain how the F-16 with single smaller rudder has more yaw / roll control at 40+ degrees AoA than the MiG-29 with two huge rudders and better aerodynamic design for recovery from post-stall regions.
6 Likes