yes just for a reminder, this change happened on 31/12/2025.
And the flankers have remained that way since. they are just putting it out on official change log(which can always be delayed about somethings)
2 Likes
It’s basically fine.
What makes it feel bad or sluggish compared to some of the other jets is their over-performance.
Things like the F-16 can min radius fight the F-18 seeing as they have relaxed stability instead of unstable stability. Exceeding the AOA limits on the F-16 irl would lead to a practically unrecoverable spin.
16 also sustains too much G at high speeds it would seem but I need more testing to know for sure.
3 Likes
Man IASM RITA is the perfect one.
Just did some testing and the F-16A overperforms in every metric by significant margins.
Sustaining almost 1G more in level turns than it should at various speeds and altitudes.
The ITR when using the AOA limiter is also much more than it should be reaching 7G at .47 Mach at sea level when it should only pull 5.8-6G under the exact same conditions and weight IRL.
3 Likes
So do other planes (su27 is pretty badly overperforming in sustained turn rate as well). If everything overperforms then gaijin doesn’t care
That doesn’t when i compared it the the SU-27 manual. Where it does its only by small margins.
The F-16 for example can sustain say 19 D/S at a speed where it should only sustain 17.
Also achieving several D/S more in ITR too. 21 D/S vs 24 D/S
3 Likes
What speed? Also wouldn’t this depend on the limiters for both aoa and g?
Not in this instance. But the AOA limit being 25 is generally accepted. I tested G below what the max was to test lift at X AOA and it has much more lift than it should.
Realt chart for comparison
4 Likes
You can’t use local host values, you have to do heading / time for degrees per sec as wtrti uses an incorrect formula to calculate it
Summary:
.55 Mach at 5000 feet should have only resulted in 7G yet I achieved 7.7G.
…47 Mach should have resulted in 6G i got 7G sea level
1 Like
Yes yes lol but I was just pointing out that the flankers FM is fine its just other jets are way overperforming.
1 Like
It’s not it’s significantly over performing in STR at high speed
That was before they fixed it recently.
They did not. There was a fix to it’s extremely ridiculous high speed STR and they did reduce it but it is far off of the values in the Su-27 manual.
Interesting, so its still sustaining more than it should lol. The FM devs don’t really seem to have much of a clue these days.
At least its not the Alpha Jet, in game it sustains like 6.5-7G when irl it struggles to sustain 4.
2 Likes
WTRTI uses the correct formula to calculate turn rate. However the localhost Ny value is taken in the wrong frame of reference so it ends up skewing it heavily at higher angles of attack.
1 Like
These charts are also taken at equivalent of 85% fuel weight and it should be noted that War-Thunder basically does not model pylon drag or does so in a very arbitrary way.
This is a comparison between a different F-16 EM Diagram and the War Thunder values. It’s turn performance past Mach 1.0 is accurate but it’s turn performance below Mach 1 is inaccurate. It underperforms in this case at high subsonic speeds and overperforms at low subsonic.
This is the same thing but using the heavier weight chart as a reference. Similar story but the plane “absorbs” extra weight better in-game than it does in real life. This is also something that will more or less be true for a lot of planes in the game.
This is a comparison of the turn rate numbers that can be found in the Su-27SK Flight manual vs Statshark turn rate numbers. It should be noted that Statshark numbers in this case might be understated by 1/2 degree per second as well which would skew the overperformance points even further.
In this case you can see that the shape of the curve roughly matches the book values but is also just overperforming across the board and that they begin to deviate massively at higher indicated airspeeds. Also you can see that this diversion will also happen relatively sooner at lower altitudes. And also with the lift-coefficient buff to the plane, it also now overperforms in STR at greater margins at low speeds.
The funny thing is that the flight model fix was still not exactly what was asked for either. The lift coefficients present in the manual do not seem match the ones in the game either.
2 Likes
75% internal fuel not 85% as per airforce and navy generalization.
Pylons drag is not modeled but a few planes top speeds are limited by pylon drag in game reducing their over all top speed. (Harrier)
It’s quite obvious the 16 is overperforming
It is also underperforming.