did they improve the su 27? I’m not following news regarding the game
I don’t think it is underperforming necessarily, there are things that would be buffed and things that would be nerfed. It was funny and entertaining to pose changes as “nerfs” to rile up Gripen fans but death threats and doxxing aren’t very funny.
In any case, the Su-27’s FM isn’t correct. Whether the changes are good or bad… it is not an Su-27 we are seeing in-game.
No.
1 Like
lol what happened?
FM Su-27 is absolutely not true, it’s anything but Su-27
1 Like
Russia has the same irl problem…
almost as if the limitations of countries irl affect the in game nation 0_0
2 Likes
Except that Russia could have had a thermal pod for well over a year in-game with vehicles that are already implemented. “Russian bias” as y’all like to say. So not sure how “same irl problem” applies in this case… even slightly.
5 Likes
No. The Su-27 flight model hasn’t been improved since the first week or so since it came out.
When it first came out, MiG-23M claimed that the Su-27 flight model was “Actually over-performing slightly”.
A few days later Gaijin increased the turn-rate and energy retention of the Su-27 flight model by noticeable margins to the point where it is today.
Back then I posed the question to him of why it was changed if it was already over-performing…and received the answer that the turn rate and energy retention improvements were in fact not improvements…but “lateral changes”.
And now the claim that is being made within the thread is that the Su-27 is underperforming due to a lack of energy retention / lack of specific excess power.
So what I am trying to follow is what process actually supports that conclusion because he acted incredulous when I suggested in-effect the same thing.
It wasn’t a claim, it was shown during testing and comparison to the manuals sustained turn rate charts. In this specific case - it was overperforming slightly.
After further reading and reports it was adjusted to the proper manual (earlier Su-27 model performance) and as we know, thrust was reduced. There were significant changes to the FM since that point. The turn rates were adjusted based on speed similarly to how the Gripen’s thrust was adjusted based on speed. The F-15 had the same treatment.
These changes did not increase the performance a whole lot, and decreased them in other areas. This is a “lateral change” since it doesn’t outright improve or degrade the aircraft performance as a whole.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say - seems to me it is obvious you’re actively trying to misconstrue what I’ve said or reported. I wasn’t even the person handling the Su-27 reports.
What I said was true at the time it was said, and about the topics being discussed. The FM as a whole is still wrong - something we learned when BBCRF pointed out the errors multiple times.
1 Like
Are you talking about FM in RB or SIM ? Because in RB it’s a UFO, just like the other planes.
Su27 ufo?
Afaik RB and SIM have the same physics but in SIM you can’t use the Instructor
Well thats a first
Do you think the F15 is a ufo
And you have never flown a jet
In RB, the instructor will allow you to go into nonsensical maneuvers that would lead to falling to spin. Also, overloading 13G+ and such… well, not really. I don’t think there’s any point in discussing the FM of the Su 27 in RB. It would be similar for the F-15. But with one difference, it can go above 9G.
But to discuss FM for SIM ? Why not.
Every discussion/test regarding FMs made by the guys here were considering the full capabilities of the plane, that is without using the instructor… Without the instructor you can for example rate equally to the f14b while flying the mig29, you can also use its full 1C capabilities which is strooooooongly limited by the instructor. The only thing that the instructor does is limit the plane capabilities to make it more player-friendly, you can pretty much do all of the same stuff with full controls, it’s obviously harder but it’s 100% possible, using just the mouse and keyboard it’s insanely hard, but a stick will completely change the experience.
Yes, the instructor will change everything completely. If the player is swinging the mouse without fear of falling into a spin, it’s very good for the game, I fully agree, but there’s no point in putting it into reality. I also wonder if the Su 27 will get above 24 AoA and above 9G with the mouse, the videos show that it does and easily. Which is good for the game. I have nothing against the instructor.
Neither do i, but the fm has nothing to do with it
If the instructor allows the Su 27 to get above 28 AoA and can roll. Then he changes the FM.
I think it’s definitely worth a try.
This is rate speeds for old flight model that you claimed was over-performing slightly.
These are rate speeds for new flight model after adjustment.
The flight model changes amounted to around 5 - 10 percent increase in turn rate at all speeds outside of the speed range between 250 - 300 kts. I would not characterize this as a lateral adjustment; this iteration of the flight model is substantially more useable than the previous iteration.
I am trying to follow the logic that you use because it is not at all consistent. It seems to me that you are claiming that the current Flanker flight model is underperforming due to energy retention / lack of specific excess power…which is something you seemed to contradict in our previous conversation.
You are not considering the loss of speed in “tighten-downs” (the specific excess power). I am well aware the FM’s sustained turns was increased, this is in accordance with the normal Su-27 manual (and not the Su-27SK, which is heavier).
Likewise, none of the testing you are showing was done at the fuel levels shown in the manual.
It is nothing BUT consistent.
There was nothing to contradict - you are misconstruing what I am saying actively at this point and it’s not even remotely relevant to the discussion. What I said was true when I said it and in the context of what we were discussing at the time. As of right now, the FM is not even remotely accurate… but in regards to purely horizontal and steady turns the sustained rate is roughly in-line with the flight manual according to Gaijin.
If you feel there is something not accurate about the FM or performance and you have sufficient information to show this and discuss it perhaps the time would be better used making a report. Otherwise, digging around what I said in the past and failing to understand the discussion or why what I’ve said appeared to have changed does nothing to further the topic.
The testing I am showing is from a source that you commonly cite. The fuel load is irrelevant; the performance of the flight model was increased.
It is not consistent at all. The only thing that is consistent is your insistence that you were right the entire time even when your position directly contradicts itself.
You claim on one day that the Su-27 flight model is over-performing…specifically in turning ability. Gaijin buffs the flight model so it turns even better and retains energy better.
So either you were wrong when you said that it was over-performing or you are wrong now when you say that it is under performing.