You’re being intentionally ambiguous. This doesn’t mean anything.
I made comparisons of in-game performance to the primary sources (flight manuals). That is the least biased possible way to do this.
But you didn’t. You didn’t show us the energy loss, turn radius, turn rate, or anything useful. You just showed us which aircraft have a higher instant G loading in a oddly specific set of circumstances and you did so in a random battle rather than in sterile testing where you can eliminate variables. What you’ve done is intentionally add irrelevant variables to push your opinion without considering all the facts.
I’ve been arguing the SMT is fine, if you want to be specific… what I’ve found is that the SMT might be overperforming. The CoG is the same as the earlier MiG-29’s… the performance is almost identical when the weight is 1:1 with the earlier versions. This shouldn’t be the case. So if you think I’m holding it back, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I’m propping it up.
Your test showed this. It DOES perform better than a MiG-21, I honestly am lost as to how you made that conclusion.
The performance of the SMT is ~1:1 with the earlier MiG-29s at equal weights. Your flawed test showed us no discrepancy.
The thing is, it won’t matter. You’re not putting them in reports… because if you did they’d be shut down. You’d be told the same thing I’m telling you now. I suppose the devs and tech mods are pushing a narrative too, right?
So how do those aircraft outperform the SMT down to BR 8.7? By pulling more instantaneous G forces? This couldn’t be further from the truth. You think that the Python 3 and R-73 have equal performance because both pull 40G? Perhaps the turn radius, power to weight, etc are all equal as well?
The fact of the matter is, you’re isolating the wrong parameters for comparison. You’re not showing us the high alpha performance or the lift coefficients. You’re literally insinuating that the MiG-29SMT is gobsmacked by a MiG-21 right now.
I’ll wait for the next set of videos, knock yourself out.
However, where you got it twisted is that GJ does not model completely on flight manuals as none of these aircraft can go mach 1.25 at sea level. They use flight manuals as inspiration. It’s a video game and every single aircraft overperforms. Except the SMT and Mig29 which is not even held realistically imo but under.
WE KNOW THIS and you keep derailing any discussion that maybe things are not so quite right with the model.
We read you loud and clear captain, you think its fine. Can we discuss possibilities it may not in peace?
The MiG-29’s safety limit is 1500 km/h in the manuals but the true top speed it can reach in game is only 1554 km/h IAS. This is accurate. Maybe there is a loadout where the MiG-29 is exceeding the limit it was capable of in the manuals. If there is please let me know, I can easily test and report that because Gaijin DOES in fact limit the top speed ASL based on the manuals. When there is a discrepancy, it can be reported.
Your testing wasn’t in a vacuum, which adds external variables. Still, the variable you were testing (in a vacuum) ironically doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s not even relevant to the point of your own discussion (alpha or lift coefficients). You didn’t end up testing either.
The testing of the MiG-29SMT at equal weights with earlier MiG-29s yielded expected results; the MiG-29SMT has almost identical performance.
(please refrain from abusing the flagging system, I was clearly discussing the MiG-29 here). I’ve highlighted the important information regarding the MiG-29 performance & dissection.
lol Be agreeable when you disagree. You should take notes chief.
Everyone says you think the SMT is perfect. COOL. You are the only one who freaks out when people attempt to hold a conversation that it is not. I mean look at you now. Completely hijaked the thread and everyone that was coming out to agree. You silenced everyone who was casually discussing the lack of performance immediately with derailment and million post claiming how you are perfect. Look at me. Look at my reports etc.
Why was it not in a vacuum? because I had AI flying around on a map the size as your home state? If anything my testing was more in a vaccum than any you have ever conducted as I made sure all aircraft were tested at sea level with the same exact terrain and elevation.
Test flights take place in random maps with differing altitudes and oxygen levels as well as temperatures.
Additionally, when I said who test in a vacuum. That was not to say it’s a good thing genius. As these are models who interact with many other models. That is why comparing them in the same test is essential to determine if one is truly under performing against the other.
It appears there is a lot of “UFOs” in the game that you should be crying about. Not just the F-16. It is probably why GJ has kept it relatively the same lest it suffer like the SMT and perform like a 11G-12G F5E.
Are we finished here? can you let players come here and voice out their concerns about the Fulcrum series without you jumping all over them with “look at me, look at me!? You are wrong. I went over this. look at my reports” ?
You tested the instant G loading with various fuel weights, ordnance, etc and claimed it is “alpha and lift coefficient testing”. I critiqued your test by pointing out the fact that you didn’t use localhost or test any relevant variables. You didn’t test alpha or lift coefficient. You’re asserting that the MiG-21 is better than the MiG-29 because it can pull a higher instant G loading. Not only is this pointless, but it doesn’t prove the MiG-29 is underperforming.
For those who don’t understand, the G number appearing on your screen won’t tell you the turn radius, turn rate, energy losses, etc. It’s a pretty pointless thing to be comparing between different fighters, and certainly not something you should use to declare one is better than another outright.
@DracoMindC and @Giovanex05 tested the MiG-29s and found them to be performing according to the manuals, my own reports are irrelevant to that. (But they too align themselves with the manual now…). There is nothing to indicate that the aircraft is underperforming. Making comparisons to other aircraft won’t change anything about that.
Again, where you err is believing GJ models 100% to how models are said to perform according to user manuals. The aircraft in game are capable of doing UFO performances because it’s a video game.
@DracoMindC does not have all these aircraft aced or spaded, neither does @Giovanex05. All @DracoMindC provided was a picture. A screenshot. Let my full videos speak for themselves and let the community decide.
There’s no derailing happening here, we’re discussing the performance of the MiG-29. Everyone is welcome to share their own testing but be prepared for it to be critiqued. My own testing and analysis comparing in-game model to the manual shows no discrepancy. The MiG-29SMT’ performs the same as the 9-13 when the weights are equal.
We as a community are not dumb. We see how deranged you get when someone barely hints at the possibility that a model is not performing totally in line to how you envisioned it.
You attempt to speak from authority as if you are a developer, and fighter pilot. You always turn the conversation around to talk about yourself. It’s quite disgusting to be perfectly honest.
May we please brainstorm ways to improve the model without derailment? If the model is perfect, then there should be nothing to fear, and we are just players complaining as you said.
What does an aced crew have to do with how much a plane can pull? From what I know, when you have an ace level pilot, the only changes are how much damage that pilot can withstand and how much G force he can withstand for X period of time.
or am i missing something? aced pilot cant pull more or less the elevators than the normal one, is the same thing…
G limitations and sustainment. Which I found interestingly the lower BR aircraft can sustain less than top tiers last night though all of them are aced.
I just compared how it performs in-game to the manual (primary source). It’s not how “I envisioned it”… it’s how it is supposed to perform from the manual.
There isn’t any fear, make a report if there is a discrepancy. You’re trying to tell us there should be one and all testing has showed none. Including your own.
I’m welcome to discuss, you have no authority to tell people with legitimate points to “shut it”. If you don’t like the fact that in-game testing shows your opinion to be erroneous… well, there’s nothing you can do about that. As much as you want the MiG-29 to be better than it is, it’s not gonna get much better than this until newer versions are added with lighter frames and FBW controls.
I honestly found it as a surprised that older generation aircraft will black out at a faster rate compared to the Mig29 and F-16 though every crew is aced.
I suppose the F16 should as it has a reclined seat that is proven to delay the blood from pooling at your feet in high G maneuvers.
Even so, for sustained turn rate testing or what have you… (places where blackout is an issue)… you can just use elevator positive trim to maintain the steady turn and complete multiple circles for testing purposes. The pilot will be passed out, but the plane will maintain the turn. Pilot level is irrelevant.
There is also a setting “reference” which allows you to test fly the aircraft in spaded performance conditions.
Again, that may be true. But its not the same for every other aircraft I just pointed out in my videos. Can you go and confirm all of them including the heavier JH-7A and F4E?
I will post the tomcat and other fighters shortly.
