Yeah nose pointing definitely takes priority… F-16s pulling into Mirage 2000s is absolute bullshit
2 Likes
They could just implement a temporary limiter removal key bind such as seen on irl jets.
I’m on the fence about the idea tho. On one hand, planes with limiters like the old F-16 FM are incredibly easy to rate fight with, which is nice, on the other hand, implementing a limiter switch could make rate fighting really easy for bad players, and I already hate the level of pandering to bad players top tier air RB has, particularly with the idiotic level of multipath error on western missiles to prevent bad players from having to learn how to deal with radar missiles properly.
1 Like
I think we really need a mechanic that would allow us to limit the instructor. It could work the way wing sweep works: have a keybind that lets you toggle between the usual instructor and a limited one, which can be adjusted based on either AoA, G, or stick deflection (only one of those).
Or there could be two instructors (toggle with a keybind), the one that tries to pull as much as it can while remaining stable (what we have now, I think), and the one that tries to go for energy retention and rate fighting.
1 Like
Imho it wouldn’t be… dogfights are dynamic, sometimes you need to pull hard… I can already imagine bad players not pulling when they should and get killed as a result (besides I don’t see noobs usually winning dogfights in MiG23s, which are pretty easy aircraft to rate fight with in mouse aim).
What @Grimtax said imho is the best solution. Have a button that allows a “manual” instructor that allows you to pull a percentage you choose of the maximum AoA allowed with mouse aim (Eg in mig29 case 100% would be 22 degrees, not 60 degrees and not even the 26 it can do with full real but SAS enabled) , and one that will just be like the one we have in game.
It would also push people to study their aircraft more, learning what AoA is best for them
1 Like
They’re actually quite generous to the radar missile users in that regard, the multi-path echo problem realistically should start at higher altitudes.
Or they could limit the F-16 specifically to the 25 degrees AoA (that you’ll never hit 99% of the time you’re flying it except at very low airspeed vertical fights)… IRL it had such a limit specifically because going beyond it would cause you to depart from controlled flight. Post-departure for the F-16 is stated as 29 degrees or more.
It’s really simple honestly, the aircraft would not suffer because it is limited in G force it can pull, it already pulls the 12-15G at less than 25 degrees AoA. Give it yaw and roll instability at high AoA (20-25 degrees) and allow them to pull only that amount but never let them go into a stall above stall airspeeds. Only allow it to exceed 25 degrees in stall conditions like real life. Simple.
For full real, allow them to exceed the AoA limiter without SAS dampening and just make them depart from controlled flight as the real thing would beyond 29 degrees AoA.
3 Likes
Thats literally more complicated than what I suggested tho lmao. The more manual controls you apply to aircrafts, the more complex it becomes to fly, and the more players become inconsistant. Its one of the reasons why the F-14A’s were inconsistent performers when released (along with the wings being made of papier mache at launch, the radar being even more trash than it currently is, radar missiles being nerfed into the dirt, and its absurdly hot engines).
A limiter switch is what aircrafts operate with irl, manual instructor (ie FBW) controls is just needlessly complicated.
Just have the instructor limit the aircraft to its normal stated aircraft performances irl, and the limiter switch allow you to pull the full 1.5x gaijin models around.
As for requiring players to learn their aircrafts, they already have to, and technically, they have to in a more stringent manner, as learning optimal rate speeds and the likes when the entire community just teaches/plays “unga bunga hud bfm” and your aircraft either pulls full elevator or doesnt pull at all is harder to do than just looking up a guide refering to what specific limits you should set for ur aircraft to get optimal performance.
Imo, manual instructor control simplifies things that should not be simplified (learning your aircraft) but complicates things that dont need to be complicated (in-game keybinds and flight controls)
Absolute incredible what you managed to do through your reports. If the mig gets fixed this week i’ll be a very happy guy, thanks for your effort bro…
2 Likes
This gigantic and pointless block of text is why people are confused or running around thinking the F-16 would be bad with the fly-by-wire restrictions modeled.
The game does not model 1.5x the G overload, it simply does not restrict the aircraft to the historical “safe” G loads that the airframe can handle the full rated flight hours on. Instead, they allow you to pull maneuvers right up to the structural limit of the aircraft which for both US and Russian designs is approximately 1.5x the “safe” limit. This isn’t some magical a-historical capability where they are adding +1.5x the sustained turn rate or performance of the aircraft. It’s just allowing you to pull more G’s within the realistic flight performances of the vehicle beyond the normally “safe” limitations.
In-game the F-16 would be unaffected in air RB by a 25 degree limiter except at super slow speeds where high roll + pitch and sometimes yawing would otherwise cause it to fall out of the sky in real life. If they add these historical AoA restrictions, it would allow players in full real to enable the SAS and fly around “carefree” without worrying about losing control of the aircraft. Allowing them to turn it off should result in swift departure from controlled flights when there is more than +1G overloads and high acceleration in positive plane (pitching)…
CURRENTLY, the F-16 is severely overperforming because instead of modeling an AoA restriction or a G restriction they’ve gone ahead and just made the aircraft capable of 90 degree + AoA maneuvers with no signs of instability or loss of control to speak of. It’s a UFO.
4 Likes
Theres literally multiple bug reports stating that not the case, particularly with missiles such as the 7M and Skyflash.
7M is stated to have a min alt of 5m, its current min alt vs an M1.0 target flying afk is 95m, and even higher if they’re maneuvering. Skyflash is like 35m irl, and also 95m+ in-game. Older radar missiles are too resistant to multipath while newer western missiles are too susceptible to it.
Nvm the fact that gameplay-wise, considering we have mouse aim, 3rd person view, no risk of debris ingestion/bird strikes, and yanno, dont die if we crash, having excessive multipath is idiotic, as flying at low alt is much easier in-game than irl
The whole thing holding back western radar missiles from getting reduced multipath effects is the devs dont “think” western radar missiles were advanced enough to have dealt with the issue until atleast the AIM-120:
This isnt a matter of it being modelled correctly, this is just the devs refusing to believe sources regarding the weapons, likely in a similar situation to what got the stinger and mistral nerfed to match the igla because the devs found a document saying the igla couldnt pull more than 10G and they “didnt think western MANPADS could be any better then”
This has already been already done and dusted in another thread somewhere on the forums. They’re not “holding back western missiles”.
idk, a 1900% increase in min alt sure sounds like “holding back”, and the fact that the multiple bug reports on the subject have been acknowledged supports that as well xD
The literal answer to “hey, why is this western thing not working as it should according to all documents?” is “meh, we don’t really think X western equipment could do what the documents say” or total silence.
I mean it affects all missiles, R-27R/ER min alt IRL was 20m so its not holding back specifically western missiles
1 Like
Uh-huh.
More complex but much more options.
The limiter is what they use to get OVER CRITICAL AoAs. Instead what I am suggesting is something that allows you to pull LESS than NON CRITICAL AoAs, which is something that is normal to do in real life (you choose how much you wanna pull with the stick).
Also it wouldn’t be that complicated… you literally just push 2 buttons and set the percentage of AoA you want, just like with swept wings. And unlike swept wings it’s not something you need to worry about constantly to avoid ripping etc. You would just set it at a somewhat decent value (like 17 degree (aka 77% of current max AoA) would be a good one for the mig29) and leave it at that, while you can get full instructor pull just by pushing a button (just like when you get back to auto swept wing).
Apart that the 1.5 number (as @MiG_23M already said) is not arbitrary, this is about AoA, not Gs… at the speeds where we get to pull over 9Gs the Instructor is already pulling less than 100% of AoA, while at the speeds you would prevent a lot of speed bleed with lower AoAs you will hit 10Gs at most.
1 Like
it seems they followed my report on empty mass (despite marking it as not a bug a few days ago lmao) though they didnt seem to change any wing efficiency stuff, which leads me to believe the turn performance will become incorrect from the graphs, so be prepared to have to make a turnrate report if performance decreases in STR and ITR when implemented
That’s what I was thinking.
if you want that much control, just use a joystick or full real controls at that point -_-
Don’t forget that not only is the 1.5x G limit not arbitrary, it’s also not magically increasing turn rate or performance over historical capability.
2 Likes
Not magically, but quite naturally
2 Likes