Hi Smin
Is there a guide/topic/post/article that states what are the margins of “close enough” for the devs regarding aircraft flight model?
As said in the earlier post after speaking with @Gunjob about the report the “main” reason behind why it was not forwarded was not the fact that there was an already answered report made with the same sources itself (since I’ve actually explicitly followed the answer of that report when doing mine (used same weights devs indicated)) but the fact that the devs had retested the turn rate back when that wrong report was made and considered the performance “correct enough”
In this case correct enough is a 0.5G difference, which is a pretty massive 16% difference from the chart. In previous cases (e.g MiG-29) the flight model was tuned for much (much) smaller differences.
It’s because the developers think the flight model is accurate enough because it’s roughly accurate in sustained turn rates and acceleration. It’s also because War Thunder, and arcade flight sims in general are not very good at modeling specific excess power.
To summarize to everyone that’s not understanding what’s happening:
Basically the staff admitted that the fm is underperforming, but they are saying that such disparity isn’t relevant enough to bother fixing, even though it’s a MASSIVE ~15% difference.
If this isn’t pure laziness then i don’t know what it is.
New materials are required to create and forward a report from this point. We cannot simply forward a report on the basis of a disagreement with the previous outcome(s).
It seems the guys flying Flankers aren’t happy that their Flanker is modeled in the game according to the official documents. In that case, they should take their complaints to the Sukhoi Design Bureau.
The chart that shows the biggest (and most relevant) discrepancy, which is the one for the test without afterburner, was not used for those reports (at least all test videos have afterburner turned on, obviously I can’t see the sources used but by looking at previous posts on this thread made by the people that did the report the non afterburning chart was not included).
Those tests were done at completely different (much higher) speeds and angles of attacks thought (this only applies to after burning test, since as said before there were never bug reports using the chart without afterburner).
I don’t want to sound polemical but I never disagreed with the previous outcome, since previous outcome was that the flanker performed correctly at the 600kph+ speeds and lower degrees of AoA of the other tests.
Does anyone here have thrust charts for the Su-27? Because every rate test I do seems to point it somewhat fine when using afterburner but underperforming when using 100% thrust. The aircraft probably has too much thrust in afterburner and too high drag (or instead too little non afterburning thrust)
Thanks for the manual. According to the chart thrust seems to be slightly overperforming at lower speeds but difference is only 100kgf per engine, too little to cause any relevant discrepancy (chart indicates 112000 KN, 112000/9.81 = 11400kgf
That’s unless the engine chart above doesn’t account all the thrust losses in the aircraft (there was a similar chart on the MiG-29 manual that indicated thrust for the singular engine that did not account for the thrust loss of the engine in the aircraft, which was accounted in another chart)
This is what I am talking about:
[quote=“Giovanex05, post:4909, topic:45646”]
It would solve any issue with the flanker
[/quote] ю
it won’t change anything at all.In WT as it was, FM will remain …
