Spoiler
This is a funny joke, not always true but funny.
9 Likes
It’s almost as if the intent of adding planes is to be equal to their competitors AKA mid, and not OP.
…
Just like the F15E, I have a hard time believing the Su30sm was not nerfed for balance reasons, the weight sure, sometimes they don’t get the exact numbers for aircraft and need to update them later, The R77-1 losing one of it’s main functions? I mean… that doesn’t sound very historical to me, Thrust vectoring getting nerfed? Thrust vectoring is thrust vectoring, it is supposed to move the nozzles of the engine to apply more thrust in one direction, which it did do! awesome, until it got nerfed and now it barely moves at all giving no advantage in a turn, again not very historical considering they have literal documents and documentaries about the Su30sm using it to turn faster against nato aircraft… unless I am crazy it seems more of a balance reason rather than “this is how it was”
4 Likes
The Su-30SM has not been nerfed in flight performance.
Its flight performance is the exact same in the last dev server as the first dev server.
The ONLY change was near-stall performance which is not notable for air modes. And it still maneuvers like it has thrust vectoring because it does. OH NO! The Su-30SM thrust-vectors like it does in real life! The horror!
No amount of lying to yourself into thinking that it was nerfed when it wasn’t won’t change reality.
And for the nerfs to thrust vectoring to make its near-stall capability be more like real-life, that does not matter for air modes. No one’s going to fight you at 200kph.
Documentaries spreading propaganda? Oh no!
Just because the Su-30SM can out-dogfight F-15s in-game and IRL doesn’t mean it can out-dogfight F-18s, Rafales, and Typhoons.
the thing is that its not accurate. The R-77-1 should be by far the best missle in the game with effective range of about 50 - 80km while AIM-120A/B has around 30-50 km. Source? i dont think there is any source that would state that R-77-1 has less range than AIM-120B
1 Like
It’s not. Missile is really draggy
The Su30sm can not turn as much because the thrust vectoring becomes unresponsive passed roughly 600-800 kph, something it had no issues doing before the Thrust vectoring nerf, that is a nerf in it’s flight performance, it was able to keep a sustained turn without the “funny button” as well as the F18, now it lacks behind because again Thrust vectoring not being responsive. you also didn’t mention the r77-1 nerf comment, funny how you nit pick the ones that help your point of view, and for the Documentaries spreading propaganda? it was actually a nato doc talking about the history of their jets. so that argument is shot down as well. Thrust vectoring worked. It made Nato switch up their jet design in fear that Thrust Vectoring was the next best thing. So you are telling me that this amazing feature, performs worse in a turn than non Thrust vectoring jets?.. come on man… think about it
8 Likes
…Ik
it still has much more range than AIM-120B, well it should have, it is draggy, but not anywhere close to how much drag does it have in war thunder, this is due engine limitations and in theory affects all missles, but R-77’s are affected the most
1 Like
“jets dont get nerfed because of ballance” maybe yes, maybe no. it doesnt change the fact that f/a-18 has unrealistic performance and i can assume you that its going to make it into the live server
3 Likes
Sadly yeah
2 Likes
The thrust vectoring literally starts at those speeds and goes all the down to stall speeds.
Su-30SM never sustained as well as an F-18C, not IRL not on dev.
F-18C was always 20 degrees per second, and Su-30SM was always 15 - 17 degrees per second.
Also thrust vectoring failed, which is why NATO countries don’t use it outside of experiments proving that thrust vectoring is inferior to standard engine use.
Thrust vectoring adds more drag inside the engine itself reducing thrust output while weighing significantly more than standard engines.
There’s a reason ALL maneuverable aircraft in the world use standard engines.
USA, Germany, and China all experimented with thrust vectoring and all of them concluded it was worse than standard engines.
source for that? I really doubt you have the exact unclassified values of the su30sm STR
3 Likes
Prove that the F-16C, Rafale, Typhoon, F-18C, Su-27SM, etc all have unrealistic performance. I’ll wait.
Either your post is baiting, your post is from a hatred of aviation, or its from a lack of physics knowledge that many here can help you with.
i didnt play f-16 or rafale so i cant relate, the f/a-18c cant enter supersonic flight at deck level with weapons attached, and it cant even sustain this flight while clean (it can enter supersonic for only a while), there are a lot of sources for this, even hornet pilots confirmed that, and everyone knows this, also super hornets didnt quite fix this issue if you can call this that way, it may not be very important in combat but that doesnt change that f/a-18 in war thunder can do this at most, if not all loadouts
Su30sm is fine. good even. Its fast enough in combination with r77-1 to actually do some bvr and it gets a pesa radar. Sure you cant do backflips anymore fully loaded, but overall the aircraft is fine for 14.0. its in a better position overall than the hornet at 14.0.
Weapons aren’t an F-18. Weapons drag is another issue entirely. On top of pylon drag which isn’t modeled in WT currently.
Both of which aren’t the F-18 itself, and impact all aircraft. ALL aircraft in WT go faster than they should with weapons attached, it’s not unique to F-18.
Super Hornets are worse flight performance than F-18C.
Thrust vectoring didn’t fail per se, but the only plane to make good use of it that i know of is f22.
That is just wrong, they did not say it was worse than standard engines. They chose not to chase the Thrust vectoring side of things because that was not relevant to their aircraft designs, they never were going for “supermaneuvrability”. Which yes there are literal quotes from Generals saying how good it is, they didn’t throw it out and say “nah this is trash” they kept with their energy retention designs and boom and zoom tatics, while Russia focused on maneuvering to force Nato planes into defensive positions to help the R73 have an easier time. So yes the design of the thrust vectoring IRL works. In game it worked before it got nerfed.