I have noticed from preliminary testing ITR has decreased by around .5 deg/s at all speeds so I think it a report on turnrate to be readjusted to account for the new weight is in order
@Giovanex05 was gonna get around to testing the turn rates I think, my focus was on not dying to unrecoverable flatspins in an airframe designed to recover from deep stalls easily.
A very important element of the RB is the ability to experience real air combat without sticks, track IR, etc.
The ability to limit the AOA (personally I would like to limit the Gs at high speeds as well, like the F16 before it) is very important on that basis
As others have already mentioned, the current mouseaim system requires very complex inputs to add or subtract turning performance, and being able to consolidate it into a single key is great. Of course, there is also the option of not using this feature (ideally, the option to not use it exists in the options section).
And even if restrictions such as AOA are not actually that flexible, just keeping the appropriate angle, for example 12 degrees of AOA for F16, is effective enough
I already have a head tracking system on my joystick and play SB, DCS, etc., but RB is great because I don’t have to put them in place and can easily play with my mouse or keyboard
The changes. is it live?! is it live?! Just got home or …
Looks like I cannot lock targets in IRST HMS beyond 10km (15km-20km) and launch ETs in a head on through clouds anymore or switch to ERs… there goes those free kills.
The USSR was a decade ahead of the west even though they had a radar engineer giving the US everything there is to be known about the radar of the Mig23, Mig29, Su27, Mig31, R23,24, & 27 for about a whole decade.
Also, everyone knows GJ cannot fully model western missiles. It’s actually really a secret western buff. You should be happy. Everyone knows this. It’s been explained many times.
They are even trying not to model the aim54 because if they did, it would actually be a nerf.
The US is being handheld while I am suffering in the SMT look at my stats compared to the F16C. hideous. I am no longer going to play it until they buff it period
MiG-23M (1972) had the Saphire-23D, the first MiG-23 to get a look down/shoot down radar
F-4J (1966) had the APG-59
MiG-29 9-13 (1986) Had the N019
F-16A (< 1980) Had the APG-66
Not to mention the F-14/AWG-9 (1974) with TWS, HPRF, and the first ARH missiles, while the Soviets wouldn’t field a comparable aircraft or radar for about a decade. So uh, [CITATION NEEDED]
Edit: I am an idiot 💀
2 Likes
how’s the mig now in terms of air rb?
I’ve flown the SMT a bit, the differences never really mattered to air RB outside of stall speed regions but it feels nice to be able to fly around and not bleed all your speed from mach in one single turn.
I was joking… the US was always ahead of the Mig29 and the USSR (who I much respect) and will always be light years over the Russian Federation (lol) for another generation after us at least.
Unfortunately, the Soviets could barely figure out what the doppler effect was until when? Like the 1980s? Or at least put as real comprehensive radar into service.
When the US already had the AWG-9 (first deployment Vietnam) and fire-control system that, from the front towards the rear, 27 units, starting with the planar-array radar antenna with 91.4cm (36in) diameter, an antenna controller, synchronizers, microwave circuits and Doppler clutter processors, digital computers, fire control system, cockpit displays, and two datalinks. The installation of all this equipment into a single aircraft was possible due to huge advances in the design of radars and computers during the 1960s: while still an analogue system, the AWG-9 incorporated the second generation of solid-state technology including throughput processors, coherent transmitters and amplifiers, microprocessors (necessary to filter ground clutter and enable tracking of low-flying targets), entire new tracking algorithms. The peak output was 10.2kW, which made it the most powerful airborne intercept radar in operational service on combat aircraft until the service entry of the Lockheed F-22 Raptor equipped with the APG-77, in 2005.
rip, i was hoping that it would change something in rb :/
it’s not live yet is it?! They have to do something to the RB FM because all jokes and history aside. Is underperforming in alpha and nose authority. Straight up.
I say thrust to weight as well but that’s my personal opinion.
apparently yeah
Its has a little better roll but feels like a Mig29 pre patch. I will try the German now.
Well… I fear that the community achieved it’s limits in terms that what can be done to fix the plane, i consider a miracle the fact that they changed the FM so it can perform better in SIM. Maybe in December when other fancy toys and new weapons come to the western nations they’ll revise the mig, we’ll stay with our little bus for now.
its live however the changes only affect sim, though legacy MiG-29s overall turn worse now as they gained 300kg of weight (which is correct) but did not have their flight models adjusted accordingly. Overall in air rb the previous flight models were generally correct only the SMT was underperforming simply because the weight difference between it and the legacy 29s was 300kg higher than it should have been
1 Like
Perhaps you are right. However, GJ then goes off of win rates. But then again this aircraft is not suffering in the slightest in win rates and KDs. So last resort will be when another fancy toy comes out.
Iduno I just feel like regardless of weight these are very high output engines. What is the thrust to weight of the Mig29? 1.09:1 to 1.15:1 Holy crap very powerful. SMT or not I personally think we should be able to toss this jet around with 15min of fuel alot better.
Thats just my thought on it though.
You guys know what the SMT reminds me of? When the F16 first came out and was limited like crazy. Almost like the SMT has a boot legged set up to emulate fly-by wire.
btw you started me on a good path of learning about radars. Forgot to mention you were right about many things last time we spoke.
Ok, granted that one could have been. However the ones that failed due to clutter were clearly stated as such so it seems likely the failure was at least not obviously linked to clutter.
The report explicitly says there was no return seen from the target or from ground clutter. So to me that sounds more like the seeker malfunctioning and not seeing anything.
Sure the fuze could maybe have been impacted by ground clutter. However even if it was that test firing is still irrelevant to the discussion we were having in that thread. War thunder doesn’t model fuze reliability, and we were purely discussing seeker capability in that thread.
The problem with that logic is that if you look at the table, the success rate for the high altitude firings is also around 50% (actually a bit less than 50%). That means firing the missile at well below the recommended altitude seemingly had no negative impact on it’s performance compared to high altitude firings.
2 Likes
@Giovanex05 I’ve been doing further testing, I think we need to look into the low speed roll rate, sustained turns at very slow speeds or performance in min radius turns if available…
Seems the MiG-29 is quite the slug at low speeds in-game right now and iirc should have much better roll rate at least…
1 Like
Let us know what you find chief. Keep us posted.