also with the upcomig BR changes the dynamic might drastically change once there are the F-16s at 13.3 with the AMRAAM so i would assume that the 12.7 planes will get lots of 13.3 uptiers
also on the topic of the upcoming BR changes, they will make the Mig-29s with the r-60 completly irrelevant in Simulator due to the bracket system, so they will always have to fight 13.0 or 13.3 aircraft like the F-2A, the F-15A or any of the 13.0 Fox-3 slingers
I hope not
Theres very few straight up fun planes throughout the full game. 3 are already being removed
If what your saying is true then my favorite F14a is also dead because of garbage level 13.3 F16s
Whens arma 4 dropping again😂
okay sure do R27R + R73 but give it pre-nerf flight performance too
not neccessarily pre buff flight model
but atleast accept the primary documents that gaijin has been actively denying ever since they nerfed the mig-29 and model the mig-29 after that
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u5jkZGHW5Rg4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2SvPmiiBjK5j
yep gaijin just keeps denying and then forgetting about every incorrect stat
yes, but i personally dont want to advocate for the pre nerf flight model, because i dont know how correct it actually was, i rather have them buff it to what the sources say
even if the pre-nerf model wasn’t perfect it might’ve been closer to what the sources suggest than what we have now but yea ideally i would be happy if they’d buff it to match the references directly
M29G have 27Er and R73.But M29G in 13.0. I don’t want my
M29(early) go to 13.0 ,it is already 12.7 now . If its mount is changed , it will reach 13.0 or even higher .
it will lose the 27er
so the IR missiles will be buffed and the radar missiles will be nerfed
so it will be worse than the Mig-29G
It’s about this time this travesty is corrected.
thats why i made this thread
Why would I fly the F-18A when it’ll become 12.7 any day when I could fly Mig-29 at 12.3 instead?
2x R-27Rs and 4x R-60Ms which serve better at 12.3 than they do at 12.7.
And of course flight performance being incorrect is no justification for BR change.
Especially with F-4J at 12.0 with marginally worse IR missiles and largely equivalent radar missiles on a worse platform with a worse radar.
F-16A cannot BVR at all.
Actions have consequences, and the consequences of >/=6x AIM-9M, R-73, etc on F-16, Mig-29, Mirage 4000, is BR 13.0.
There is not a single gen 4 fighter/interceptor using 6x IRCCM missiles below BR 13.0.
And the gen 4 fighters using 4 or more IRCCM missiles with 4 or more SARH missiles are under-BR’d.
Mig-29 on 100% fuel, Mirage 4000 on 60%.
@tokerstar
The engine thrust curve was never nerfed, and the drag was already corrected recently which is why it got a “buff” to flight performance.
The engine thrust curve needs fixing, and if the drag is incorrect then it’ll show with the correct thrust curve.
I’m already permanently retiring F-16A ADFs from random battles because of the AIM-120s being added to them.
I am tired of the first aircraft being carried by missiles instead of having a chance to have their airframes shine.
Statshark is overestimating the Mig29 fm
Watch from the timestamp
Also your chart shows that the M4k has way better bleed rates than the Mig29 meaning it trades in energy way better than it
I would take the M4k any day over the Mig29 in a dogfight
Yeah looking at the 29 fm on star shark you would think it would lose slightly to the blk 15, but in reality it gets fried by the blk 15
it gets fried by nearly everything. Putting it even close to a block 15 is a fantasy
I mean on statshark it looks like the 2 it would be close. But in reality it gets cooked by it, I’m agreeing with you
donutwithmustache reference?
You can say that 2 is not equal to 3, and you’d be correct — but that still doesn’t make 2 equal to 4.
In the same way, your claim that the thrust is only wrong between 450–600 km/h isn’t accurate.
The thrust curve only matches the charts within a small range (about 1000–1200 km/h). Outside of that, it’s incorrect — below 1000 km/h it underperforms, and above 1200 km/h it overperforms.
your overall statement is correct, but the range you’ve given is not true
I’m pretty sure I’m one of the people who has spent the most time dueling in the MiG-29, and no, it’s not underestimated.
The only thing it does reasonably well in-game is rate fighting — but if you try to go aggressive with the MiG-29, you just end up bleeding position and energy almost instantly.
Even then, its rate fighting is only average at best, and its turn fighting is practically useless.
This is completely different from real-life reports, where the MiG-29 was known to excel at turn fighting — especially when matched against F-16s (wich absolutely molest the 29 in Warthunder)
wrong
