you proved again that you can not read
1 Like
->mig-29 avionics not the best
->no they arent you just need to do all those extra steps and workarounds
3 Likes
Theres nothing to balance… the jet is already grim.
You have it twisted. Its the Realism that ruins the game. See ki200 and its 1 min of usable fuel. So much fun or…
Go have a look at any youtube videos comments about the changes to the F16A… not 1 happy chap in sight - realism in action.
The jet/ loadout you are lobbying for is DOA.
I am only saying that the mig-29 is available for test flight for any account. No need for insults. Your presumptuous demeanor is getting old.
Who’s talking about workarounds? I’m talking about an exclusive feature that the Mig-29 and the Yak-141 have over their competition at 12.7. Its not a workaround, its an advantage.
F-18’s acceleration is not too high in War Thunder.
The implications of that would mean F-16C’s acceleration is too high.
It was literally designed to rate fight.
You don’t put rate fight wings/etc on an aircraft and then expect not to rate fight.
It was designed for carrier landings but thats a side consequence/bonus. The downside is the drag at speed
No it wasn’t, only DCS larpers think that.
A bit of a sidenote, but i actually find it hilarious that DCS is single handedly convincing it’s player base on how the F18 is actually the best dogfighter of all time and nothing comes close to it
3 Likes
Yes, because doctrine is slowly going away from being able to go mach 2 and more about avionics and weapons to save maintenance and fuel costs.
@Farlexgamer_psn
I like how you strawman an argument to support your first argument.
Your argument is getting closer to implying and claiming F-2A’s lift profile also wasn’t designed for high rate.
No one here, I repeat zero people are claiming F-18C is the best dogfighter in the world.
The best hypothetical dogfighter is a subsonic fighter that uses a high-thrust engine and lifting surface design that is good for subsonic drag and a control surface design that allows the drag to stay relatively low in high aspects [and other details I’m forgetting at this time]; no one’s going to make that aircraft though.
In-game it depends a bit on the versions. The finish F-18C is a decent ratefighter since it has the C engines with the A weight.
Now since this is a mig-29 topic, the F/A-18A or C early FM is more relevant for comparison. They are not bad ratefighters, and when paired with good 1C performance they make good dogfighters.
But speaking strictly of ratefighting, the mig-29 does 21.5 deg/s and the f-18a does 20.5 deg/s. Having said that, it seems to me that the f-18a is the better dogfighter by a small margin, considering the performance outside of optimal ratefighting.
But since the mig-29 can disengage at will, its not an issue in a real match, and in a 1v1 the mig-29 will always start in an advantageous position because of the R-27ER which will force the F-18 to either be notching or scrapping the ground before merging while the mig-29 can just dive on it and lag pursuit
No, you saying teh F18 was designed to rate fight, is like saying that the P47 was designed to turn fight.
It simply wasn’t
Thats why i added the sidenote in the beginning of my comment.
I don’t think i called you or anybody out in this thread in particular, unless you’re also a dcs player, which i’m gonna assume you’re not… right?
That title belongs to the F-35.
Source:
Trust me bro.
1 Like
Statshark massively overestimates the MiG29 Fm
1 Like
The values I gave are from actual in-game testing earlier today. No statshark here and I don’t trust it much.
Statshark overestimates and underestimates on the mig29 FM, the curves are all wrong. It underestimates max sustained rates, says 20.5deg/s instead of 21.5 for ±700kph turn rate, and overestimates lower speed rates.
It also underestimates every F-18 max sustained rate by 0.5 or 1deg/s can’t remember exactly.
1 Like
If War Thunder wasn’t realistic, then it wouldn’t be as successful or unique as it is, so that’s clearly not the case.
Realistic vehicles are quite literally the main selling point of the game.
3 Likes
Guys, please define “realistic”. Because this game is as close to be realistic as a sandwich is close to be a salad.
2 Likes
I get what you are saying in a way.
But if the game went full flight sim with real G limits etc it would die in no time
But lines have to be drawn for gameplay,
1 min of usable fuel for eg is the worst thing iv ever seen in a game… in the name of balancing, realism or any other nonsense.
If you are using full throttle in any of the rocket planes, you are doing it wrong
Iv tried. 15 deaths - shot once, rest crash. 1 kill- pilot snipe as guns, to add salt in the wound are 100% broken- pretty vital for a shooting game but just lol.
IRL “Its intended role was to intercept B-29 heavy bomber”
In game its fighting mig21 and f104. Buy yh its realistic 🤣
whenever i see that emoji i know it is not worth to continue the conversation