I made a post about this on the dev server forum and as expected on live the R-27ER was buffed to unimaginable performance levels that only a coping Russian bias dev could dream up 12 hours before the patch went live. They also boosted Mig-29 thrust as well just hours before the patch. They like to sneak this stuff in so they can rig the game in their favor.
This is how they rig their carnival game:
Nato radars are built with the same flaws as Russian radars when IRL they did not have them. This takes away one of NATO’s main strengths in game: RADAR. When its on an even playing field with flawed Russian tech, guess who comes out on top? The Mig-29 radar is historically terrible. In game you would think it has an F-15 radar capable of holding lock in extreme situations and ranges.
Copy/paste missiles. Aim-7M is a copy/paste of Aim7F. Aim-54C is a copy/paste of Aim-54A. Russian missiles get entirely new code, never a copy/paste. They also seem to magically get better with patches. Something NATO missiles never seem to get after they are copy/pasted.
Drag nerfs. R-27ER was not effected by the drag nerf a few months ago. Aim-7M/F was. Look at how they both perform. One is a free kill, one can be dodged by simply diving a bit.
SMT with 180 degree modern radar with buffed R-27ER super missiles so they can launch and maintain 100% notch while holding lock in TWS mode. This radar didnt come out until late 2000’s? This is the most bias part of it all. Meanwhile NATO cant even get a decent realistic radar. If you didnt realize it they basically gave Russians 2 free super Amraams with how they are implemented in game atm. “BuT thE AmRAaM iS To StRonG FoR GAmE”
All I want is a realistic nato radar and missiles that are not copy/pasted. The phoenix as implemented in game is an embarrassment. They are not even 1/3 of what they are IRL. Meanwhile your R-27ER with a 1 out of 30 hit ratio IRL (the jet that got hit landed back at its runway) is performing like some super missile. Last I checked the Phoenix has way more combat kill credit than your over juiced R-27ER. So whats the excuse? Just blatant bias? Or you forgot you copy/pasted some missiles and meant to go back and fix it? What is it?
Well if we had to make a list of what was wrong for every nation of the game except Russia which has it easy we would stil be here in two years and second why would they give us what we deserve when it would completely remove russsian BIAS? It all started with Pantsir and now we just have to deal with their russia madness. Proof they are just biased as hell as of late is that they got SMT, Pantsir and 2 versions of SU25T and A10C is still not in the game what the hell is this. Super Etendard just arrived when it should have been here since long ago. They are just proving us they cannot refrain themsleves to boost russia for no good reasons. I seriously hope the MICA will be their nightmare because as much as i esteem the AIM120 its maneuvering performances don’t come near the MICA ones.
Before going to the various points I’ll say this: yes the R-27ER did not need a buff and now is probably too good for the game. That said, bad changes happened also for the soviet side (right now the MiG29A had a massive nerf in the flight model, it feels heavier than the SMT.
Radar wise the MiG-29’s radar was not bad at all in real life, even more so when you consider the Zhuk that the SMT has. What the Rubin (N019) radar of the MiG29A is bad at is searching targets at long range (especially the ones with downgraded electronics that Serbia or the Iraqi used) and that is not an issue in game since the distances are short and there’s no ECM. In terms of tracking in STT lock the N019 shares a lot of electronics with the radar of the Su-27, which is considered a pretty good radar.
Actually it’s the AiM7F that is behaving like an AiM7M. In real life the 7M does not have an inverse monopulse seeker, and his tracking ability at lower altitudes would suck compared to what it is now.
The Zhuk-M did not came in the late 2000s and is a relatively minor upgrade over the original Zhuk, which is a radar from the early 90s (1987 first time it was tested in a MiG29M).
The ability to fire and turn around is FAR stronger than what you think, and R-27ERs are not super amraams lol.
That’s because the fighters we have in game are more than capable enough to deal with them. If you started notching/going low as soon as an R27ER is fired (especially if you fire back another ER or an Amraams as happened in real life, that way the bandit will also have to defend) the ER is not gonna it you. The only problem for this is that in air RB with 16v16 every time there’s a massive furball and you often won’t spot a guy until he is 5km from you and in that case notching becomes very hard (only real option is to stay near the ground).
If you start firing Phoenix on export versions of MiG21s and MiG23s I’m sure you will get the same results.
I’m sorry but what you are pointing out even if it may be true doesn’t justify at all how much nerfing Mirage 2000 and F16 radars have i don’t really know for F16 as the radar take quite some time to notch and stuff but for France i know that the radar lacks all aspect TWS, 530D lacks the ability to re-acquire targets if it loses lock until its battery time is over which means a less than 1 second notch can be enough to make a 530D explode and finally the RDY is way to easily notchable if the locked target notches for 2 second the radar goes off which it shouldn’t that combined to the fact RDY should have very small notch sector plus i could add that 530D rear shot capabilities were completely removed by gaijin making the missile usless in rear attack scenarios while R27 series and AIM7M/F have no problem realising rear shots. The game is currently full biased. Russia has the only thrust vectoring missile of the game, only Inertial guidance + data link missile which has almost hypersonic speed and 35 G turn capabilities all that while having a medium and long range IR version with an IRCCM, great radra and HMD designation for both IR and Radar missiles while F16 and M2000 only have IR missiles HMD.
F-16C radar is definitely not worse than the Zhuk in terms of notching resistance. The fact that every other nation apart from US and USSR is often left behind is a know issue and I myself complain about it.
As I said at the start of my post the ER is definitely extremely and probably too strong right now compared to everything else, but it’s still not too hard to avoid, and once you survived the ER the only option a MiG29 has right now against an F-16 is too run away, as with the new flight model not only the SMT but also the 9-13 bleed speed like crazy and feel like bricks under 600kph (the MiG23MLD literally outrages them). Claiming that the devs have a bias towards Russia is childish if you are playing US aircraft.
Sources on the AiM54C being hypersonic??? The only 2 thing I know it had was a replacement of the analogue guidance system with an electronic one and the (not so) smokeless motor
The Rubin is definitely not bad in game, as war thunder air rb is basically the situation the MiG29A was designed for: Take off → full speed towards contested air space that is less than 100km away → have ground radars spot targets for you (in our case we know more or less where they are since we know when and where they take off → lock targets and fire under 40 km → be good in close range fights
It’s not so easy to notch, it’s definitely (and rightly so) more resistant than the AWG9 and other longer ranged radars. And yeah, range does not matter, which was the big weakness of the Rubin in real life
I know what you are trying to say. But this needs to stop.
The Zhuk is from the late 80s so it is arguably very modern. Modern just means “of the modern era” this is a timeframe from 1500 on to the 20th century.
Historians don’t have a consensus on when it ended exactly, but we do know that it is indeed over.
The discussion is whether it ended with the second world war or with the establishment of the internet (starting the “information age”).
We also do not really know what the current age is called. In practise contemporary age is used.
But we also have names being thrown around.
-information age
-postmodern age
It wrongly used as a synonyme for “current” or “late”, that’s because it was able to be used for such a long time in this sense, since the modern age started after the middle ages and did go on just until recently. So 400 years of using the word that way needs deprogramming now. But that era is over, get used to it.
If a soceity lives in the same age for over 400 years, the name of the age becomes a Synonyme for “current”… i already explained that. Language is a living thing and dictionaries donnote how words are used.
Right until 50years ago it would still be correct… not anymore.
I mean the same dictionary says a “theory” is :
“an unproved assumption”
As you can see here.
Even though the actual meaning of a theory is wuite the opposite (gravity isn’t an unproven assumption is it?)
See the dictionary has it as an unproven assumption because that’s how idiots used the word incorrectly for so long the wrong (i mean it is literally the opposite) definition became accepted. That doesn’t make the theory of gravity an unproven assumption. And it doesn’t make whatever comes after the words “i have a theory…” an actual theory, it’s still just a guess not a theory.
Same with the word modern. Only because people use the words “this is modern” doesn’t mean it actually is.
