yeah we/ I figured that out as well after looking at bug reports lol
@ron_23
I’m glad we agree that the thrust curve is incorrect.
Literally is:
Right after I started re-invstigating the thrust curve issue… would you look at that.
And evidence the thrust curve is incorrect between those speeds and beyond:
what you said is this:
i do not care what you said somewhere else or on discord
your own evidence is saying that the thrust is incorrect at every speed
which isnt even your evidence it is @Merf_HD 's evidence
stop the gaslighting
1 Like
why am i arguing?
simple because you are trying to twist your statments after the fact to not look bad no matter how right or wrong you were
it isnt your evidence it is @Merf_HD 's and said very specific words which mean very specific things and you changing the message after the fact doesnt change what you said
you said that the thrust is ONLY incorrect between 400 and 650kph meanin it is correct at any other speed
so cut it
go gaslight someone else becasue i will hold you accountable for your words
becasue you will just go on and continue trying to manipulate words and their meaning into something they arent
1 Like
To reiterate my argument that I’ve been making for well over a year:
The thrust curve of RD-33 engines installed in Mig-29 is incorrect.
My initial findings found evidence beyond 400kph and exceeding 650kph.
I thought I was accurately implying that the curve was incorrect to around mach 1, but that was clearly not the case since some haven’t picked up on that implication and I have fixed the error in wording to include a + or “more than” or “exceeding”.
I apologize to those that did not understand that was my claim, I made wording errors and that caused issue.
My posts that had incorrect language used have been corrected.
that was not your claim
you said that you have sources, which you dont
you said the flight model is correct, which it isnt
you said that the thrust curve is correct besides from 400 to 650kph
an argument you made a year ago in a thread that is dead does not matter here, as nobody has seen that thread or read your messages, that is in here
and now cut it as it is off topic and i will also not continue this in PMs
1 Like
My brain is melting Georgie best momento
2 Likes
need tho have the last word dont you?
that dosent make you right and gaslighting will not help you and twisting what was said will neither
merf disagreed with you as well, that is a fact
you are still trying to twist your statment, from what was actually said
and you should accept that you dont know what words mean if you keep this up, you said something very specific, which dosent leave any room for interpretation and yet claim that you didnt
stop the gaslighting you are not convincing anyone here
and you not backing down shows that you desperatly want to safe face and try to make me the one who was wrong even tho everything is pointing against you
and again:
stop it nobody wants to read your gaslighting attempts and they are off topic as well
1 Like
Just leave the R-27ER, add R-73 and 27ET and move them to 13.0.
Also good to see that Razorvon(alvis) is still gracing the forums with their enlightened takes
yap thread
1st of all that is ahistorical for the 9.12 and 9.13
2nd that will not happen due to it completely invalidating the Mig29G completly
The only way to get the r73 on the 9.12 and 9.13 (ignoring the 29g) is to have the r27er removed as it should because they never carried it
This is kind of a double standard take.
MiG-29G never carried R-27ER, so why shouldn’t it have it’s R-27ER removed as well.
I honestly think the MiG-29s are fine as is, the R-27ERs are almost guranteed kills and the rest can be done with the gun.
Also at 12.7 the MiG-29 9-12 and 9-13 face a lot of premiums who aren’t aware enough to flare, thus giving more power to the R-60Ms
@Danzig_A11
If you have an issue with people saying the Mig-29’s flight performance is incorrect, just say so instead of personally attacking others.
Classic
Honestly, it is quite funny that M2K that is ways better than MiG-29s is sitting at lower BR.
The MiG-29G should not have been added to TT in the first place because historically, the differences between the MiG-29A and MiG-29G in the real life are merely modifications to several different specifications and functions in NATO and WSO.
They could add G model as premium but, they added it in TT with arbitrary changes.
It should but it will not happen because that would be the only thing that makes it worth to grind
So it is highly unlikely that gaijin removes the er and et from the 29g, even less likely than the base Mig29 getting the r73
Base 9-12 could jsut get it’s R-27ER removed. Keep br or lower to 12.3.
29G could just remove 27ER&ET and keep current br.
So treat other 29 as 29G, while leaving 9-12 at 12.7/12.3
that just makes the Mig-29 even more irrelevant
why would anyone want to fly that if you have the F-16A at the same BR with way better flight performance and missiles heck you even have the F-18A which has the 9l and 7m as well
at the end you will just get a worse Mig-23 at a higher BR, which the mig-29 already is only difference is that it has a HMS which shouldnt even work with the r-60 as they can not be directly slaved to the HMS but only to a radar or IRST lock
why should it stay at its curent BR after the armament got nerfed?
it is already not doing so great
currently the Mig-29 is just one of the worst options to take out at 12.7 and you wont make that better by removing the r-27er due to historical accuracy but denying its signiture weapon the r-73
it is like denying the Aim-54 for F-14s as the mig-29 was planned from the start to use the r-73 in combination with the HMS, just like hte F-14 was planned to use the Aim-54 in combination with the AWG-9
1 Like
That’s still gonna be decent BVR fighter, which can do smth in WVR.
Cus supersonic decent dogfight platform with IRCCM missiles should not be 12.7, which still has R-27R. That’s simple.