The R-27ER is still the best SARH, but yeah in today’s matchmaker the AMRAAM will win out.
Initially, Gaijin made the Mig-29/Su-27 quite well in terms of the capabilities of the War Thunder, but then they began to “correct” them and bring them to the flight manual.
On the .ru forum (rest in peace), we managed to find out some details:
The Su-27 had Oswald’s efficiency number reduced twice. Gaijin was downgraded in an attempt to bring the aircraft’s performance in the game to the flight manual. From the datamines, the guys found out what Oswald number the developers had set and found that this did not correspond with one German study, in which this figure was much higher. One CBR from the .ru forum tried to contact the developer and find out about it. Dev was told that he should not focus on this since the Oswald number (drag) is a variable value, and their flight model is limited by the possibility of linear changes in values in flight. Now the Su-27 is worse than in reality at low speeds, but better at high speeds.
I concluded that they cannot model the nonlinear jump in drag increase near the sound barrier. Trying to bring it to the manual, they averaged the values and now the Su-27 at subsonic speed behaves like a log.
On the other hand, there was a good report in English about the instability of the F-16, to which the developer replied that since FLCS has not been implemented, they will not make the F-16 unstable so that it would not be difficult for players to play.
This is a surreal situation where Gaijin make the red ones worse, so as not to be better than the flight manual, and they make the blue ones better than irl, so that it would not be difficult for the players.
10 Likes
They cannot properly model the Su-27 until they rewrite FMs to account for relaxed stability/instable designs. Otherwise you change how it behaves in one area and screw up how it does in another.
Edit: its current FM is worse than initial release more due to RB players bitching about the instructor than anything else.
1 Like
So we’ve experienced major balancing issues simply because drag is unrealistic in War Thunder.
Fixing inaccuracies with more inaccuracies goes deeper than I thought.
It also shows that the game has never been prepared for modern vehicles. The simplistic drag was probably good enough when there were only props and subsonic jets in the game.
3 Likes
Apparently, this is related to the limitations of the dynamic flight model of IL-2 Sturmovik, on which this game is based.
If someone is interested, this is how I would fix the player imbalance. Of course it will still be there, U.S. planes are just more popular, but the difference would be smaller.
It’s also the thread I was talking about, when I said I’m making a new thread, which will also address issues discussed here.
73 better in case of range and usage in WVR.
Bro are you being fr??? How is r73 better in case of range. Wait I forgot, you don’t play the game. Forums 24/7
7 Likes
It has more thrust, longer burn time and less drag.
I assumed you never used r73, look at the previous replies by other people plz
3 Likes
I looked into stats of both of these missiles in the War Thunder’s data mine.
Have you seen how it performs in game? Have you used it? Looking at raw numbers don’t tell the full story.
4 Likes
Actually more drag, but other - yes
Isn’t “CxK” the value for drag? If not, then which value is it? For AIM-9M CxK is 3.4, while for R-73 it’s 2.5.
By the way they pretty much reversed the changes they made to missiles. AIM-120 has even more max fin aoa now than before. R-77’s drag is 1.85 again, if CxK means drag.
Diameter also matter
Raw numbers do tell the whole story. Math is more reliable, than feelings.
Isn’t CxK value like the total drag of the missile in their code?
Really?
You can check the commit history on the data mine.
Maybe it’s because coaches don’t play? ;) jk
It’s not about feeling. Practice is always more reliable than theory.