Simulator Air BR Rework — Full Technical Analysis from 1.0 to 12.7+ and Systemic Solutions

The current Simulator Air BR system is not just unbalanced — it is fundamentally broken. Not in one BR range, not in one era, not because of one aircraft — but because the entire system is built on assumptions and data that do not apply to Simulator Battles at all.

From 1.0 to 12.7+, every BR bracket contains structural, mechanical, and technological mismatches that make fair gameplay impossible. This is not a minor issue. This is a systemic failure that affects every aircraft, every player, and every match in SB.

What follows is a full technical breakdown of why the current BR system cannot work in Simulator Battles — and what would be required to fix it.

This document provides a comprehensive, technically grounded analysis of why the current Battle Rating (BR) system is fundamentally unsuitable for balancing Air Simulator Battles (SB) across the entire BR spectrum — from 1.0 to 12.7+.

The issue is not limited to individual aircraft. The problem is systemic, rooted in:

  • how BRs are calculated,
  • how the matchmaker functions,
  • how avionics and technological generations are ignored,
  • how flight models behave differently in SB,
  • and how SB gameplay mechanics diverge drastically from RB.

Below is a detailed breakdown of why the system fails from the very bottom of the BR range, and how it can be technically corrected.

1.0–3.0 BR Range — Early Prop Aircraft, SB‑Specific Technical Issues

1. Cockpit visibility and canopy distortion

In SB, visibility is the primary survival factor. The BR system does not account for:

  • canopy frame thickness,
  • distortion,
  • blind spots,
  • rearward visibility,
  • cockpit ergonomics.

An aircraft that is “fine” in RB can be effectively blind in SB.

2. Gun ballistics and aiming

SB has:

  • no markers,
  • no lead indicators,
  • no aim assist.

Thus, ballistic quality, muzzle velocity, gun placement, and dispersion matter far more than in RB. The BR system does not reflect this.

3. Flight model stability and trim requirements

SB uses full‑real flight models:

  • no instructor,
  • no input smoothing,
  • realistic stall behavior,
  • constant trim management.

An aircraft that is “easy” in RB can be uncontrollable in SB.

3.3–6.0 BR Range — Late Prop Era, Compressibility, Energy Fighting

1. Compressibility

In SB, compressibility is fully simulated. RB’s instructor masks this.

This means:

  • some aircraft cannot dive effectively in SB,
  • others become dominant due to superior high‑speed control.

2. Energy retention

SB’s aerodynamic modeling makes energy retention far more important. Some aircraft outperform their RB BR placement by a wide margin.

3. Cockpit aiming ergonomics

In SB, aiming depends on:

  • canopy clarity,
  • gunsight visibility,
  • cockpit layout.

The BR system does not account for this.

6.3–8.0 BR Range — Early Jet Era

1. High‑speed control authority

SB models:

  • control stiffening,
  • compressibility,
  • pitch lockup,
  • realistic roll behavior.

RB’s instructor hides these issues. Thus, BR values based on RB performance are inaccurate.

2. Energy management

Early jets in SB rely heavily on:

  • acceleration,
  • energy retention,
  • drag modeling.

The BR system does not reflect these differences.

3. Lack of radar

In SB, lack of radar is a massive disadvantage. In RB, it is far less impactful.

8.3–9.7 BR Range — Radarless vs. Early Radar Aircraft

1. Pulse radars vs. no radar

In SB, radar provides:

  • situational awareness,
  • target acquisition,
  • BVR capability.

Radarless aircraft are severely disadvantaged in SB, even if RB stats suggest otherwise.

2. Early IR missiles

In SB:

  • poor seekers,
  • low G‑limits,
  • weak kinematics

make early IR missiles unreliable. Yet the BR system treats them as equivalent to later IR missiles.

10.0–11.0 BR Range — PD Radars, SARH Missiles, RWR Generations

1. Pulse‑Doppler radars and look‑down/shoot‑down

In SB, PD radars provide:

  • superior situational awareness,
  • reliable tracking,
  • BVR dominance.

The BR system does not separate PD and non‑PD platforms.

2. SARH missiles

In SB, SARH missiles behave with:

  • realistic guidance,
  • realistic notch mechanics,
  • realistic chaff interaction.

Yet SARH‑capable aircraft face IR‑only aircraft in the same BR range.

3. RWR generations

In SB, RWR quality determines survival. The BR system does not distinguish:

  • analog RWR,
  • digital RWR,
  • modern threat libraries.

11.3–12.7+ BR Range — TWS, ARH, IRCCM, Modern Avionics

1. Track‑While‑Scan radars

In SB, TWS provides:

  • multi‑target tracking,
  • silent lock capability,
  • BVR superiority.

The BR system treats TWS and non‑TWS aircraft as equals.

2. ARH missiles

In SB, ARH missiles have:

  • realistic lofting,
  • advanced seeker logic,
  • high G‑limits,
  • long‑range engagement envelopes.

Yet ARH platforms face SARH‑only aircraft.

3. IRCCM missiles

In SB, IRCCM:

  • resists flares,
  • maintains lock under maneuver,
  • provides all‑aspect capability.

The BR system does not account for this.

4. Modern HUDs and avionics

In SB, HUD clarity, radar UI, and HOTAS workflow directly affect combat performance. The BR system ignores these factors entirely.

Why the Current SB BR System Fails Across All BR Ranges

Across the entire spectrum, the BR system:

  • uses RB statistics that do not reflect SB performance,
  • ignores avionics and technological generations,
  • ignores cockpit visibility and ergonomics,
  • ignores SB‑specific flight model behavior,
  • allows excessively wide BR spreads,
  • has not been updated to reflect new radars, missiles, or FM changes.

This results in systemic imbalance from 1.0 to 12.7+.

Proposed Solutions — Technically Grounded, Full‑Range SB BR Reform

1. Create SB‑specific BR values (1.0–12.7+)

BR should be based on:

  • avionics generation,
  • radar capability,
  • missile capability,
  • cockpit visibility,
  • flight model behavior,
  • energy retention,
  • SB‑specific performance metrics.

2. Matchmaking based on technological eras

Instead of BR alone:

  • early piston era,
  • late piston era,
  • early jet era,
  • Cold War era,
  • early BVR era,
  • modern BVR era.

3. Maximum 1.0 BR spread in SB

Across the entire range.

4. Separate radar and non‑radar aircraft

Especially above 7.0.

5. Quarterly SB‑specific BR reviews

Not once every few years.

6. Publish SB‑specific performance metrics

Such as:

  • average radar lock range,
  • missile hit probability,
  • time to first detection,
  • time to first engagement,
  • cockpit visibility impact,
  • energy retention metrics.

This would make SB balancing transparent and data‑driven.

Conclusion

The current SB Air BR system is:

  • technically flawed,
  • statistically invalid,
  • gameplay‑wise unfair,
  • and fundamentally misaligned with Simulator mechanics across the entire BR range from 1.0 to 12.7+.

Simulator Battles are not RB with cockpit view. They are a distinct mode with distinct mechanics — and they deserve a BR system that reflects that.

This post is intended as a constructive technical analysis, not as a complaint.
I hope it can contribute to improving Simulator Battles for everyone.

1 Like

A J-7E or F-5E FCU are better planes than something like an F-4C, Swiss Mirage III, or even an F-4E.

Does it? Asymmetric advantages will always exist, and while TWS is very useful, it is already baked into the BR system because the planes that have it, will often perform better than the planes without it.

A meta of exclusively flankers dunking on everything else would not be fun. There is a reason why they are rated higher than any other SARH plane, and quite a few ARH carriers as well. They shouldn’t be 13.3 at the moment because of BR compression, but they 100% would be if 13.0/13.3 was decompressed.

In what way? You have 11.7 planes like the Mirage F1C that would be 10.7/11.0 if they didn’t get IRCCM. Or the A-10C (which is arguably too good at 11.7) would be ~11.0 with only 9Ls.

This is too definitive to be added, since non radar aircraft can be found at a very high BR (J-7E, Kfirs, Harrier Gr.7(It think)). There’s also stuff like the Mig-19PT, La-200, or Mig-17PF that all have radars, but wouldn’t be vastly better than planes without them.

This I agree with.

Ideally the statistics of aircraft will show if something is too weak, especially if it’s weak in one of the mentioned ways.

However, the BR system does have massive issues, mainly to do with similar aircraft being far apart (10.7 F-4E vs 11.7 J-8B, 13.0 Mig-29G vs 12.7 F-15A), OP planes (Saggitario 2, Su-30MKKs, or the Sea Vixen for example), and generally mediocre balance, leading to there being a clear meta plane a lot of the time. There’s also imbalance between Red and Blue at certain BRs.

1 Like

Em dash in the first two paragraphs?

Come on man, if you know enough about sim battles to prompt a robot to think for you then you know enough to at least make a proper post with your own brain on the topic.

1 Like

Thanks for the comment. The formatting isn’t really the point — the technical content is. Everything in the post reflects my own analysis of SB avionics, BR interactions and systemic issues. If you have thoughts on the actual topic, I’m interested in hearing them.

Thanks for the detailed reply — this is the kind of discussion SB actually needs.

A few points to clarify where my argument comes from:

1. “J‑7E / F‑5E are better than F‑4C / Mirage III / F‑4E” In RB, yes — because RB is performance‑driven and instructor‑assisted. In SB, the picture changes drastically because:

  • radar SA matters more than raw kinematics,
  • radarless aircraft lose situational awareness instantly,
  • SARH platforms gain value that RB statistics don’t reflect,
  • cockpit visibility and ergonomics matter far more.

So the issue isn’t “which plane is better”, but that RB‑based BRs don’t reflect SB‑specific strengths.

2. “TWS is already baked into BR because TWS planes perform better” This is exactly the core problem: BR is based on RB performance, not SB performance.

In RB, TWS barely matters. In SB, TWS is a massive advantage:

  • silent lock,
  • multi‑target tracking,
  • no need to STT early,
  • easier notch detection,
  • better SA in BVR.

RB stats don’t capture any of this. So SB ends up with RB‑balanced aircraft in an SB environment, which creates mismatches.

3. ARH vs SARH I agree that a pure Flanker meta would be awful — but the current situation is the opposite extreme:

  • ARH platforms fight SARH‑only aircraft
  • SARH platforms fight IR‑only aircraft
  • and all of this happens because BR is tied to RB stats, not SB capability.

The point isn’t “make ARH planes higher BR”. The point is: SB needs its own BR logic because avionics matter more than raw flight performance.

4. IRCCM You’re right that IRCCM affects BR — but again, that’s RB‑driven. In SB:

  • flare timing,
  • flare directionality,
  • seeker logic,
  • aspect angle,
  • and pilot workload

all behave differently.

RB stats don’t reflect SB missile behavior, so SB ends up with RB‑based BRs for SB‑specific missile interactions.

5. Radar vs non‑radar aircraft I agree it’s not as simple as “radar = higher BR”, but the point is:

SB relies on radar for SA in a way RB does not.

A radarless aircraft in SB is:

  • blind,
  • reactive instead of proactive,
  • forced into defensive flying,
  • and dependent on visual spotting only.

RB stats don’t capture this disadvantage.

6. Statistics will show if something is weak This is the core issue: SB statistics are not used for BR. Only RB stats are.

SB has:

  • different spotting,
  • different missile behavior,
  • different radar usage,
  • different flight model handling,
  • different pilot workload,
  • different engagement ranges.

So RB stats simply cannot represent SB performance.

7. We agree on the most important part:

“The BR system does have massive issues.”

Exactly. And most of those issues come from the fact that SB is balanced using RB data, even though the two modes have fundamentally different mechanics.

That’s the entire point of the post.

I don’t get it.

Aircraft in SIM have a different BR than aircraft in ARB. You understand that, right? This is to account for all these things you say.

1. Cockpit visibility and canopy distortion

For example, and F-16 might get a higher BR in SIM vs ARB because it has great cockpit visibility. Like, F-16A is 12.3 in ARB and 12.7 in SIM.

Same goes for everything else you’re saying

Sure, there are outliers of OP / undertiered planes, and compression in general is a problem. But it’s far from as bad as you’re making it sound. In general I can perform decent in pretty much any aircraft. I’d even say that aircraft performance matters MUCH LESS in SIM vs ARB (compared to skill).

Uh do you actually know how strong the F-5E and J-7E are? The J-7E can literally destroy everything with little effort and F-5E is just better than MF 1, Mirage III and F-4E plainly.

Their strengths apply to RB and Sim as most people are just MP and if you’re relying on the radar for SA below 14.3 I have bad news for you it’s not good to do that and not use your eyeballs to VID.