I suggest you to remake the tests using WTRTI or localhost, fulcrum rates better than the su-27, both SM and the regular one
Staying already in notch position while tracking people or guiding ordnance in TWS gives you vastly better response time to notch incoming ordnance especially given how much more the Su-27 compresses at high speed. The ability to turn the nose around on the MiG-29 at such altitudes and speed is far better than the Su-27’s imo but to be honest I have not tested this since the Su-27 FM was buffed.
The rates vary depending on fuel load so that isn’t ever guaranteed. What I can say from experience is that most Su-27 players bring a LOT of fuel and end up having worse performance in general than the MiG-29… but they also stay in the combat for longer, too.
1 Like
This and the kit is what makes it vastly superior to the 29 in RB (and sim)
Maybe equal in number of ordnance but how many of those are truly “free kills” against semi-sentient opponents? :) (6 ordnance!)
I have like 500 flight hours on it - its by far my msot flown aircraft.
It does rate better - but only on paper.
The turncircle of the SU-27 is much tighter - the 29 doesnt have a chance unless the 27 fucks up.
What do you mean “meh”
It has the same missiles - but 3x more
Its Radar is also better than the Base MiG-29Gs radar (which sits at the same BR)
Also, bringing up the MiG-29SMT is completly useless - you argue with the flight model of the MiG-29A/B/G but with the avionics of the MiG-29SMT
Im sorry to bust it to you - you cant have both
Either you pick the MiG-29A (which already has a shitty flight performance) with only 6 Missiles of which 2x are useable at 12.7 (fuck the R60)
Or you pick the MiG-29SMT - that thing has worse flight performance than some 3rd gens and additionally it sits at a really annoying BR (13.3 - good luck going up against JF17s and the 14.0 bracket)
You cannot just say “well the 29A has somewhat ok flight performance” and then go around saying “Well the SMT has a better radar and fox-3s, so its better than the Flanker”
Either argue with one - or with none of the models, everything else is quite frankly stupid.
The 29G for example sits at the same BR as the SU-27 and gets outperformed in EVERY ASPECT at the same BR.
-less fuel
-less weaponry
-worse radar (Flanker radar has more range)
-worse fuel consumption
-worse flight performance
The only plus you do get is “climb rate” which honestly doesnt matter - what are you gonna do? Start climbing in your MiG-29 on full afterburner?
Yeah, imma bet you wont have fuel when you get to the battlefield then - and even when you get there - the SU-27 can supercruise, something which the MiG-29 totally lacks
2 Likes
Straight up a lie, the MiG-29 bricks up completly above 900km/h IAS
This is false
A ratefight isnt determined by only the Sustained turnrate (which you can see with the F14)
Turncircle size - is really important, maybe even more than the actual turnrate.
And while the 29 and 27 have a similiar turncircle size at 300km/h - the 29s becomes HUGE above 600km/h and GARGANTUAN above 900km/h
And this is just the MiG-29A/G, the 29SMT you are talking about here doesnt stand a chance against the Flanker in terms of flight performance - stop neatpicking yourself the advantages of individual aircraft to create an imaginary mix betwee n
2 Likes
I made my point clear, performance of the SMT is fine and it has plenty of useful ordnance options.
Flight performance is more than sufficient. Check the final 1v3 against F-16s when I’m still loaded with 18+ mins fuel.
Nothing you’ve said has changed the facts.
3 Likes
I hate to admit that this plane is not bad lmao.
These last minutes with the 16s were awesome btw
2 Likes
Flight performance and Player skill are two totally different things
Well maybe you should look at actual data instead of pulling out a clip that is over a year old.
Here you have the ingame EM-charts for some of those matchups:
I am going to say it again the only point where the Mig-29smt beats the Flanker is the Radar and maybe the time to climb.
@dragonflaine71 you might think so because that clip was made before the Mig-29 flight model nerf.
If you want to compare the flight model it has right now to the different F-16 variants look at the EM-charts that are in the spoilers in this post.
3 Likes
here is also the Mig-29smt vs the F-16c
as you can see the mig-29smt loses the matchup against all the common f-16 variants
1 Like
The SMT came together with the fm nerf, i remember being depressed at the time cuz all i wanted was a mig29 with r73s and then when i finally got one it came as a brick. SMT always sucked fm-wise, the thing is, theoretically, you shouldn’t use that plane like you use the other 29s. Out of all my fulcrums (i got the 9-13, 9-12, 29G and the SMT) the SMT is the one which i have the best stats because of its bvr shit, IMO its radar + ordinance makes it very good for its BR, even more after the fox3s update in 2024 which also brought the multipath nerf.
SMT while being the fulcrum with the best stats in my statcard is also my most hated fulcrum, cuz although it is indeed very good i prefer sneaking around with the 29G and dogfighting, even though it’s not as efficient, but i also think the SMT performance is enough to do well (we’ll get to that on the end of this reply).
I’m well aware of that, nothing but the eurocanards beats the war thunder f-16 if they are all with the same fuel % and missile amount. In MiG’s clip those vipers probably had a lot of fuel, fuel tanks, or a lot of ordinance which made them heavy, but here’s the catch, what MiG’s pointing out is that there’s a lot to consider when you go to RB, the fuel and missile amount ppl pick for their planes impact a lot on their maneuverability (which you can see on his video), and when you consider those variables, the SMT’s performance is enough for the gamemode.
the problem is when you face a player that actually knows what he is doing,
the F-16 has better avionics and Missiles, you could argue about r-73 vs 9m but irrelevant rn as it was never point of the disscussion.
If the Mig-29smt is good enough for RB then the Su-27 is great or even goated.
2 Likes
I think it’s not even a matter of a player that knows what he is doing or not, like, If it were 1v1 situation on which both players agreed on picking the same fuel amount and missile then yes, i agree with you, but in this case there’s some situations that you just can’t foresee…
You wanna know my opinion? Su-27 is op as fuck, i don’t understand why does it share the same BR of MiG-29G, not saying it should face EFs and Rafales on a regular basis (those should get its respective BRs raised to at least 14.3 in my opinion) but it also shouldn’t be at the same place of the fulcrum with its insane kit, with the possibility of facing f*cking phantoms…
1 Like
yeah the br compression is a big problem at that br,
if you have it at 13.0 it is going to be really good, if Gaijin put it back at 13.3 nobody would play it
You can see that in Simulator where the base Flankers are still at 13.3, nobody is playing them unless it is for grinding from what I have seen, there is no reason to play them, you get worse avionics and are facing the same enemies as the Su-27sm.
1 Like
Best case scenario imo:
EFTs, Rafales and F15E - 14.7;
F15Cs, F16Cs, Gripen - 14.3;
Su27SM, 29SMT, M2k - 14.0;
Su27, Su33 - 13.3;
29G, F-15A and F-16AM maintained at 13.0
but that’s unrealistic for gaijin’s standards, so i’d be satisfied with:
EFTs, Rafales and F15E - 14.3;
F15Cs, F16Cs, Gripen - 14.0;
Su27SM, 29SMT, M2k - 13.7;
Su27, Su33 - 13.3;
29G, F-15A and F-16AM maintained at 13.0
nah the f15a should also be 13.3,
why should it be ok for a f15 to kill wallet warriors with the 9m and 7m while having better flight performance than the flanker.
Imo the f15a should go to 13.3, bc it has better flight performance while having a slightly worse missile kit compared to the flanker.
2 Likes
I show y’all tangible proof that one of these FMs being allegedly so much worse is actually a non factor in practice because 95% of players don’t know anything at all about dogfighting except to hold the pitch key and your response is immediately circular.
The first time it was said it is flat out worse, now you admit otherwise.
Which one?
What is the fuel % for these charts?
Everyone is a victim cuz there exists an unrealistic underperformance but the truth is they ain’t half bad.
Like a 4v1 against superior aircraft with only a single missile and a gun?
Damn it is almost if i said that Playerskill and the perforamnce of a plane are two different things:
I never doubted that it has a better climbrate and said that the better radar isnt as relevant because you dont need to hold the lock to fire a r77.
Maybe you should read my whole messages:
It is 30% or Minimum fuel.
I could also adjust the fuel so they have the same amount of afterburner time but then the Mig-29 would be on full fuel, like they do it in DCS 1v1 duels.
The problem isnt necceassarily that the Mig-29 or Su-27 underperforms but that everything else is massivly overperforming.
2 Likes
And I just told you it is a non factor in practice. It’s not like one is able to cruise at 1.5 mach and get there twice as fast above a certain altitude. This isn’t like comparing an F-4 to an F-16.
That doesn’t make any sense, what does holding a lock matter? Just use TWS to guide it in while already practically in a notch.
Unfortunately it seems I’m being made to read and refute them more than once it’s actually pretty annoying.
That would be better suited to the scenario as those F-16’s had around 6 mins fuel and I had like 18 mins.
That isn’t really the truth though is it, and you already know very well that I did quite a few of the reports on existing airframes; F-14, F-15, F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG-29, Gripen etc