https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/j6PNe9ihSkJm
2 Likes
That was the only change, fuel burn rate is a visible parameter that would have had to been changed. As are the flight model data. This isn’t a server side change that wouldn’t be visible.
Must you immediately attack people all the time?
1 Like
you right
1 Like
If you need additional context**, absolutely here you go:
Yes, it is a terrible existence you must have in WT IF all you do instead of actually play the game is lurk around the forum to convince players their vehicles have not been improved & they are simply imagining it getting better when they were not expecting it whatsoever. The update was not even out for a full day & they are simply reporting their thoughts.
You do not know for an absolute certainty that any & all parameters in the entire game that could have an effect fuel economy was not altered.
You have not even reviewed what others are experiencing when they play the Mig-29. You specifically asked me my thoughts, & in good faith told you what I was experiencing. In which you decided to use that as opportunity to downplay without any actual evidence because someone said the fuel tanks were spilt.
Fuel tanks being spit is absolutely irrelevant to anything I said & specifically irrelevant to fuel economy of the Su-27SM as long as there is no reduction or increase of any fuel “sitting” in those tanks or that which is “processed” in those engines.
That only change that is apparent to you at moment & any other regular end user who does not have a formal or professional understanding of software development & three-dimensional simulation modeling.
Spoiler
Whose entire concept (like many of us player) of game development originates & revolves in WT Datamine reports. It is your only experience (if you can even call it that) in these subjects. Again, not everything is immediately determined in Datamine reports. Later? perhaps, never? absolutely.
The individual who taught you & provided you the capability to generate your own reports confirmed directly to you verbatim (“That is literally the case”) that not all changes are caught in Datamine, GJ can & has made changes to their own game that are not reflected in Datamine.
GJ also just further clarified within the last two weeks that changes can be made to the game without ever officially confirming them in any changelog, that some changes can be to implement to resolve issues that never set foot in the queue of the bug reporting service.
There are changes implemented to the game that does not even require a download in the launcher. (if I interpreted that correct. That is news to me.)
Now, regarding the increase an additional couple of minutes of fuel in the Su-27SM and potential reasons why an additional minute is needed.
The slightest alteration in the SMs aerodynamics, parasitic drag in both the aircraft or the new pylons of the new pylons and missiles can have an effect in fuel economy. Any alteration to post stall stability can reduce or increase the aircrafts performance in any given speed regime. Even drag at certain altitudes have effect in fuel economy. Until every
The SM’s aerodynamics can be altered, physics, such as weight, somewhere. These things can be minorly altered that will have the reduction in fuel economy to the degree I noticed in the SM. I have not flown the S in.
Also keep in mind I also noted that we are flying much more defensively & dynamically throughout all stages of a match beginning & end (because ARH missiles) that could explain the need for additional minutes. I considered this, & also considered that the SM is no longer weighed down by massive, heavy R-27ERs anymore. I expected fuel economy & performance increase on average over the Su-27S. It is the opposite for me. I feel the J-11A is lighter (have no idea if that is due to historical difference.
I am always lighter than the previous Su-27S last update because I just carry 6x R77s & 2x R-73s on wing tips.
My strategy at moment is to be the lightest & fastest aircraft that will reach his ideal position first for a successful missile launch. Because we do have the worst radar because lack targeting range & detection with zero TWS or SRC FoV modes. It is a pain switching back & forth in the HMD & then TWS in which you must wait for the scar
The parameters that meter fuel usage on a specific aircraft are known and visible.
You claimed to have felt a change and there is nothing to support that. No testing shows any changes. No parameters were modified in the files.
The sugar pills of a new update are having their effects. You do this every major, it’s nothing new. No such changes were made.
1 Like
2 Likes
What do you mean? I use a very specific fuel time in my Su-27 & J-11 that goes unchanged for every single match.
This update requires that I increase the time by couple of minutes in the Su-27SM even while it is carrying smaller & lighter missiles. Even less R-73s. I only carry two wingtips at moment.
There is my evidence. You don’t like it, so what.
When you actually play the game & the Su-27 gaining actual experience with it over a relevant number of games. You will notice the smallest differences in the Su-27 & those of potential new ones that someone like you, who only Golden Eagles new aircraft in War Thunder to test fly & plays 10 games before giving up forever is not able to ever to see on their own.
Of course, you need a report written out every single update to believe anything.
When you play a specific aircraft as your favorite type in the game. You develop your own custom settings instead of fly full fuel every game like a beginner. These little performance optimizations do go a long way in advanced levels of competition.
Of course, you fly every aircraft full fuel when you go in actual games. You are a Custom Battles Warrior who plays the game exclusively with minimum infinite fuel & infinite ammo.
I suppose this is all further reflected in your stats & why you are not capable of killing half of the enemy 16v16 team at top tier in under 1 minute & 20 seconds, right? :)
Flying optimal is just as important as the missile. You cannot achieve superior missile kinematics over your opponents if your aircraft cannot achieve superior positioning.
The Su-27 does not ever need to be flown full fuel. Many aircraft do not.
Doesn’t hold up to the test
The claims you are making aren’t backed by any evidence whatsoever. None. Just some regularly scheduled sugar pill you get every major update. There wasn’t a change.
1 Like
You do not know what the word evidence means.
Regularly scheduled pill?
Are you trying to say the word prescription?
Please do explain.
You made a claim of a change in fuel consumption rate, but there hasn’t been one. The only change is the splitting of the two tanks mentioned before… and that was weeks ago.
You’re going on about something that wasn’t modified or adjusted in any way… Again… Like you always do on major updates.
2 Likes
man reading this is 50% watching 2 kids fighting and trying to get their parents to say one of them is right and the other is wrong and 50% aircraft that arent actually a flanker lmao
3 Likes
I clarified in detail that I need to add fuel time this update. I listed possible reasons completely seperate to fuel consumption. I also clarified that you do not play the game buy only GE aircraft to test fly them. You do not actually play the aircraft you spend money on.
So, you would not be able to determine if the Su-27SM does in fact need more fuel time in actual gameplay. This is why you rely on Datamine to tell you what has changed. The issue is Datamine does not catch every change & GJ can make changes to their own game that are not reflected in you weakr datamining.
Do you need further assistance in understanding this?
Do you even have the SM?
Thank you for finally sharing these @BBCRF.
These American & Western European players are under the assumption that the cobra is useless in combat & supermaneuvrability is a gimmick. Why are they so quiet all of a sudden?
It’s almost like you & I were telling the truth from the beginning to these Western Pop culture drones who live on propaganda. There is no reason to lie to them whatsoever.
We are the only two Flanker fans not subject to American Propaganda who maintained that the cobra/dynamic decelerations are useful in combat. I respect you the more for posting these.
Oh, Is that right? You love just making up details huh?
The Flanker can swing its nose in angles of attack in higher speeds greater than all 4th generation Western Fighters. It can cash in that stored energy for shots that are otherwise impossible for conventional fighters to make who must wait until they can capture the Flanker with their HMS & high off boresight capability.
This is the exact reason why 5th generation Air Superiority fighters of every superpower nation are required to be supermaneuverable.
The Flanker is a special, exquisite design & aerodynamic marvel that can perform unconventional flight performances in both defensive & offensive combat tactics.
Hope this information helps.
There have been several major advancements in missile technology in the last few decades which have made any kind of WVR combat almost complete suicide.
Super maneuverability was relevant during a very short period where we were still using 70s era technology well into the 80s and 90s.
The R73 was a phenomenally radical advancement for its time that western nations tested and played around with but was pushed aside due significant reliability and technological issues at the time, which when used with a Cobra manuver was extremely effective in specific situations.
The last 20 years has seen the introduction of ASRAAM, MICA, IRST and AIM9X, which while all have varying degrees of capability and WEZ.
The combination of high off boresight, lock on after launch, advanced forms of datalink and 360 degree tracking on systems like the F35 means that you no longer have to point the nose in the direction of the threat to reliably engage it, we can engage threats directly behind or below without even having to make a single offensive manuver.
Supermanuverability has been a plaything toyed around by Western nations long before the Russians ever utilised it, and the conclusion was always the same.
Any advantage gained by being able pitch your nose beyond the flight limits of the aircraft, were immediately followed by an extreme vulnerability due to loss of airspeed.
4 Likes
Thats what the Americans thought after the Korean war with the F4 Phantom.
They learned a very hard lesson in Vietnam.
That is why to this very day WVR combat is extensively trained upon in post graduate programs such as Top Gun & the USAF Weapons School.
2 Likes
Because it is, most of the time. It is an energy dump to attempt to put the target in your weapons envelope that you only have one chance of doing. It should not be your first choice in combat.
Because there isn’t a need to derail a thread making counterclaims to every single point when it won’t be productive.
Wild. I didn’t know this thread doubled as a crusade against “Western Propoganda”.
If pilots do what they are supposed to do and stay below the Weapon Engagement Zone, these tricks are near useless. You have at least stated the risk, you are expending energy for this shot. If it fails, you will find yourself losing shortly afterwords.
It is still bound by the laws of physics. Outside of a cobra envelope, it certainly has extraordinary turn-in capabilities at speeds. The Flanker must use this initial advantage to get a dogfight kill as it would be losing energy rapidly as it prolongs.
Apparently, the F-35 does not agree with this statement. And even through High Alpha research vehicles like the NASA F-15 and F-18, thrust vectoring has not been retrofitted to these aircraft. So either the U.S. is ignorant about the benefits of thrust vectoring or the U.S. does not see reasonable benefit to adding that for modern warfare.
And then when it comes to Red Flag exercises, it is all BVR kills, sans when the stealth fighters feel like doing a gun kill on A-10s and cargo aircraft.
5 Likes
But thas just for 2000s and beyond, with the technology that we have in war thunder wvr is still relevant so i agree with ziggy on the relevance of supermaneuverability for the current state of the game, that will change when they start introducing stuff like the raptor, felon or just 4.5 gen stuff tho imo.
2 Likes
The problem with the F4 phantom and vietnam was that the armchair generals thought that all engagements would occur at high altitudes and would only be BVR combat against hoards of soviet nuclear bombers. It was an unproven concept that has no basis against reality.
Vietnam was instead low altitude hit and run tactics against US bombers and fighter patrols.
Technology right now is proven and effective at what it does and what it needs to do, and the lessons learnt in Vietnam are still having a major effect on decisions and tactics made today.
BFM is still taught all over because we know and understand that we have limited stocks of these advanced missiles and aircraft.