I guess I’ll have to micromanage the trim and SAS if I want max performance whenever I want.
The same can be said for all missiles in the game it is not solely Soviet stuff being treated differently. The R-27ER still smoked everything else.
Ive been trying to get the MiG-29 fixed for a while now - and there isnt even that much wrong. /s
The flight model is just weighing 1 ton too much comapred to irl - its made to match the charts at minfuel, but the charts are taken at 60% fuel (which is 1 ton more)
The engines provide only 6800kgf - thats the value for the Tuned down engines of the MiG-29G in the german Luftwaffe, the actual engines provide somewhere between 7500kgf - 7800kgf
At high speeds it starts to turn around - the thrust increases to unrealistic high values, resulting in the high compression of the MiG-29 that prevents it from fighting at >1000km/h in warthunder.
This also displays in the Thrust to weight ratio which according to the Handbook and all public outlets is supposed to be 1.14 at 60% fuel (13.000kg Mass).
As of Right now in warthunder the TWR only goes to 1.14 at 30% fuel (minfuel - 12000kg Mass)
and last but not least the Specific excess Power (SEP) that was mentioned multiple time so far - that is a result of the engine thrust, if you make a custom mission with adjusted thrust the schart becomes much close to what it should be.
Gaijin (or at least the bug report forum mods) seem like the dont want to buff the MiG-29 at all - they have lied to multiple people that bug reported this by telling them wrong values from a “Channel loss page” in the flight manual which doesnt exist
(The page mentioned by the Devs talks about the Stability of the aircraft - nowhere from this can you calculate the Channel loss)
This is really funny if you think about it as channel loss values we know for other aircraft tend to be around the 5-10% mark.
Lets even say its 10% (idk how but lets just go like that)
We would get a total of 7470kgf at 10% channel loss - this matches up with the charts
A wopping 700kgf more thrust per engine is a CRAZY difference in flight performance.
8 Likes
And yet if that was done, other factors such as drag and whatnot would need to be modified to ensure it still meets the current expected performance.
2 Likes
it already isnt meeting certain criteria.
As I said - gaijin took the values for Minfuel (12000kg, 30%) but the charts they adjusted it for where at 13.000kg or 60%.
It doesnt match the listed acceleration - turnrate - max AOA at specific speeds and sooooo much more.
I used the localhost for testing, but ig shit like WTRTI would allow you to easily see that stuff without having to create your own charts and shit.
Just give it a try and try it out - they literally fucked the model so hard for no reason lol
Also another thing thats wrong are the scan patterns - it should go from Top to bottom and restart at top, not restart bottom to top
This makes the scantime 8 seconds on the mig-29 instead of the actual 4 seconds it has irl.
1 Like
Such as?
Be more specific
continues to mark the criteria 1 line below
if you had read my message or the charts ive send in before asking questions you wouldve seen:
The thrust to weight ratio at 13.000kg is 1.03 in warthunder - not the 1.14 that it should have.
The Acceleration (Specific Excess Power is a term for acceleration - its measured in ms/s or ft/s)
As said before the turnrate only matches the charts in the documents at minfuel - not at the 60% fuel which the charts are based on.
The maximum AOA curve is completly off too - but not in the way you think.
If you go on and do the testin you`ll see that there is a steep cut where from AOA is drastically reduced in higher speed regimes.
It pulls way too much AOA at <600 km/h, leading to unrealistic high drag values that would never accour in real life.
I hope this was specific enough (its literally the same shit as I said before) pls read my message before asking questions next time
If you´re interested in a detailed mix of numbers I made a bug report about it:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8IUgrqwegpJZ
This is only about the thrust - but even then more acceleration would already help the plane like crazy
9 Likes
like losing to an f16 in the 1-circle?
2 Likes
now id like to ask you a question: What expected performance?
have you looked into this aircraft?
do you know what it can - and did in real life against US planes of the 4th gens in testfights?
Do you know what its expected to be?
What expected performance do you mean - because as far as I can tell this shitbrick isnt meeting any of my expectations of a proper flight model.
2 Likes
It’s no use, I calculated the thrust manually for these idiots with all the losses. They didn’t take that into account either
War Thunder doesn’t simulate the drag of pylons and missiles right, so it doesn’t help MiG-29 that 13,000 kg is full racks 2 missiles.
The chart in war thunder matches the second chart, the MiG-29 in game also matches sustained turn charts, which have the right results when calculating things from polars on section 2 of the manual and the engine thrust in game.
And those charts are matches with 13000kg fuel, not 12000kg.
It beats the F-15C and F-16C in game with full real controls, the A veriosons of both planes are overperforming, that’s why the 29 does not feel fantastic against them.
Weight for this chart is not specified and is likely not 13000kg. The amount of lift the 29A should have to perform like this with 13000kg is well above the polars.
2 Likes
So you reject all the preceeding pages and claim it must be… 11000 kg empty. To achieve… Performance consistent with the previous page?
What does it say at the bottom?
I explained before that the MiG-29 at 13000 kg is on full racks and 2xR-60 so let’s see the consequences.
Using the drag table we can take 4x P-62’s (DI3) and 2 APU-470’s (DI7).
That’s 12 + 14, but it also includes 2x P-60MK for 2x DI8.
In total that’s a DI of 42 and they’re trying to match it… Clean.
The clean DI of this plane is 230.
12800 kg is much better, it has DI12 but… It’s still not clean.
1 Like
I didnt even mention the missile pylons.
The problem is that the plane only fits a variety of charts if you put it at 30% fuel, despite the charts being listed for 60%
Same goes for the Thrust to weight, which clearly says 1.14 at 13000kgf in the first few pages of the manual.
This would indicate roughly 7400kgf - which would be no where near the 8300kgf thrust that the engine provides outside the airframe - this can therefor not be the TWR without channel loss.
And from what I can tell from this document so far is that its either contradicting itself, or speaking about completly different engine modes without specificying them as such.
But even if you take a look at the MiG-29G flight manual - a completly different source - it very cleary states 7520kgf on page 19.
1 Like
Might I ask how a higher weight would shift the SEP curve into the high speed area?
It is crystal clear that the MiG-29 looses too much speed at lower speeds and gains way too much speed at higher speeds.
Its peak acceleration should happen at 900km/h - no matter the weight.
And thats only IF the weight is actually not 13000kg - which is highly unlikely.
The entire flight manual talks about 13000kg with 2x R60MKs and like Henge11220 already pointed out all the previous pages state these values - there is no reason why it should be 11000kg now (and even if - it has no affect on the shape of the SEP curve- just on its position on the Y axis)
1 Like
Also might I mention that there are various other stuff which is questionable at best about the MiG-29s performance ingame.
For example that the engine ingame is spinning at way too low RPMs?
Irl the engine would have a RPM of 10.000 (its indicated in the cockpit too - you literally dont even have to look up shit) on 100% non afterburner throttle.
In warthunder on the other hand it runs at ~8260 RPM non afterburner and 8350RPM with afterburner.
In short: the engines in warthunder are only running at 83.5% of their real life thrust.
if you use this to calculate the thrust at the real RPM … omg - you suddendly get 8000RPM!
Additionaly the Devs PURPOSFULLY lied to me in the bug report forums - saying that figure 4.6 indicates 6800kgf due to channel loss
this together with the fact that the engines run only at 83.5% of their real life RPM makes it seem like this stuff is intentionally wrong - these are errors way too obvious and easy to search up
so either gaijin doesnt want this aircraft to be good or option Nr.2 - the flight model is terribly researched and has no real effort put into it to match the described performance - instead its just “Monke makes rate chart align - monke call it a day and go to sleep”
3 Likes
Nope, I’m only talking about this chart:
The first two charts you posted are for a different section of the manual (5. something instead of 6. something).
I’ll try to be as explicit as I can this time:
According to the chart 6.4 the aircraft can do a 5G turn at 500kph IAS while pulling LESS than 24 degrees of angle of attack. Instead according to chart 6.14, which is for 13000kg mass, the aircraft needs 24 degrees of angle attack (aka more lift) to do exactly the same turn. This is not possible without lower weight.
MiG-29 in game matches chart 6.14 with 13000kg mass.
Also I’m not claiming that it is 11000kg but more than that. I previously wrote 113000kg but I had made a mistake in the calculation, actual weight is around 12000kg.
The mistake I made was that not only N_y but also N_x is using the aircraft (and not velocity) coordinate system, which implies that N_x = 0 is Thrust = Drag \cdot \cos(AoA) and not Thrust \cdot \cos(AoA) = Drag .
More importantly the MiG-29 manual has the lift and drag polars included, and in game they are correct to a reasonable degree of accuracy:
