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.
The performance at the specified load was the point of discussion at the time. Now you are showing other metrics to call me a liar as if it would even be relevant to the thread. Please bring something useful to the discussion.
The FM was changed, I explained what was changed and why and linked the reports. What I say about it is irrelevant and you are free to come up with your own conclusions. In the meantime, you are bringing nothing to the table for discussion. Just pointless rambling.
Again - due to the fact that we were comparing the Su-27SK manual to the plane we have in-game (which is not the Su-27SK)… You’ll find the Chinese model aligns itself more with the SK manual. (This is the aircraft I had at the time and was testing, so what I was saying was true). If I recall correctly, the J-11 also had additional thrust that was not fixed alongside the Su-27 during this period among other FM changes.
As I said, at the time and in the context of the discussion what I was saying was true. It only appears to be contradictory because you are comparing two things I’ve said at different points in time about separate planes, flight models, reports, whatever… as if they should be 1:1 without considering any of the aforementioned context. Instead of asking me you’re coming at me in the public thread furthering pointless discourse.
Whether I am right or wrong is completely irrelevant, what we know is that the reports were made and the FM was adjusted based on the evidence. I made none of these reports. You can rest knowing the FM was adjusted per these reports. What I am specifically discussing right now is entirely different…
The FM is not accurate for a number of reasons as stated and shown by BBCRF. If you wish to continue digging into old posts without doing the proper reading feel free, but I must warn you that it doesn’t add to the thread and nor will it fix the problems of the Su-27 (unless someone puts together a report).
This conversation alone has wasted enough of my time, as I also said prior… I am focused on other things and do not have time for reporting anymore for the foreseeable future. If you REALLY wish to continue discussion about whether what I said was erroneous please do so in DM’s so we can all ignore them. Thanks.
1 Like
Do you have a link for that one?
Idk, check avialogs or something. @DracoMindC @Giovanex05 might have it. Whoever did the report. The turn charts are above somewhere.
Hmmm, can anyone find exactly where they are?
This you mean it seems
2 Likes
I’ve never been able to find a source for this one. But generally and roughly it matches what an RAF test pilot who flew both types wrote to me in correspondence and what I have posted here. At lower speeds the Su 27 has the advantage, between 375 -M0.85 they are surprisingly similar and above the Eagle is at its advantage. I write this as a point of interest.
Struck a nerve much
Russia has vastly fewer options, even up to today. And they are heavily compensated for it in game with the best Helis, SPAAG, and until recently, MBT. No need to be snippy and make grandiose statements about “Y’all” and “Russian bias”.
1 Like
Well in the case of SPAAG the western countries really don’t have a proper counterpart to the Pantsir, that said they should’ve added the Tor instead of It.
Of which many are already in the game that support the use of thermal imaging targeting pods. They were not given these pods in spite of the fact that every other nation has one. You have no point to further here.
2 Likes
I kinda feel like we’re doomed to have bullshirt FM until we get a bit instructor rework or FLCS instability integrated into the game, most of the FM are either UFOs or Underperforming…
The devs are stuck in their ways, there is no fixing it. If we expect realism there are other games but War Thunder is a great arcade game. It’s as close as it needs to be currently even though it is wrong.
4 Likes
Yeah, at least it’s fun to fly the gripen to take revenge on the f16s that tormented my poor mig29 for months 🙁
1 Like
I think this won’t ever happen because most players are unaware of such inconsistencies, It won’t make a difference for Gaijin speaking of money so it’s not worth to invest on It, much different from a game like DCS which the community is well aware of these particularities and often ask for realism, which is fair enough, different games different purposes…
1 Like
I’ll be honest, playing UFOs makes the game unbearably dull, most players are already bad at the game and having to face them with a broken plane feels like seal clubbing…
I’ll prolly take a break and see how thing goes but I came to play a plane game not a UFO one.
No asked for flying saucer 🙃
2 Likes
Yeah that’s the same thing that i’m doing, i only play when my pals invite me
1 Like
Honestly i can bear that ufo flight model, what irritates me most is it having shit ton of countermeasure alongside that flight model. Harrier having BOL dispensers at least made somewhat sense since it was subsonic without any radar or sarh missiles. Now you can turn on auto-dispense, stay at low altitude and do whatever you like to do without worrying about heat seeking missiles meanwhile everyone else besides you still have to keep their SA at all times in those 16v16 furballs.
I just moved back to Falcon BMS and DCS this point, at least i can have fun constantly without dealing with such bullshit vehicles…
5 Likes