All that matters is that at 800km-900km the ability to execute high angles of attack in full real to conduct aerodynamic techniques associated with supermaneuvrability is at this very moment a reality.
All that matters is that the wing rip threshold to be increased higher than Mach .75 when attempting supermaneuverable regimes and GJ has it set as far as Mach .80+ where it is at this very moment a reality.
These are characteristics were present on the dev server, however now with excellent fine tuning. Its lovely and dynamic deceleration is now tactically feasible in full real without falling out of the sky.
The developers have done an excellent job and no one had to tell them how to do it.
bruh what’s with this constant obsession of proving that ur on the “right” about some idiotic and childish discussions that happened weeks ago? Wtf will you earn with this? So cringe and meaningless, so much for so little lmao.
If the radar cannot be implemented fully in the Su27 yet for balancing purposes etc. Do you guys think perhaps we can get action on improving the IRST to historical capability?
What i hate about SU-27 is how garbage the RWR and R-73s are, an F-15 just flared 3 of my R-73s in a dogfight <1KM, this thing is utter trash compared to 9M.
Can’t be flared under 1.5 KM my ass, blatant lie, they should change R-73 name to R-60 super
idk, i think gaijin is happy with the current plane and will just keep “ignoring” these complaints for now, i still think that when fox3s get added we’ll get a lot of changes regarding these stuff, but without them i’m not so sure.
Aim-9Ms are a literal death sentence if someone decides to fire at you anywhere near your 6.
Perhaps the IRST can be modelled better. It is more powerful than the 29 and much bigger. Range should be better, and I personally think its logic as well. I do feel they drastically limited the ET too. Its top speed and is probably just as flare hungry as the Aim9L.
I honestly just stopped taking them on the jet. They go after friendlies more than anything and the enemies they do track, ends up falling out of the sky because its reduced range.
SU-27 with full A2A loadout to kill cas F-16 costs like 798 spawn points, but definitely not op UFO F-16C costs like 850 SP to spawn with 9M and shit ton of bombs. Definitely balanced, and the 9Ms are invisible defenders of cas that cannot be flared in ground RB.
Rear aspect at 1.5 is deadly, but yeah if you launch in a headon or side aspect and your opponent act quickly it’ll most likely avoid it. I like the r73 tho, i don’t think it’s that bad, i played a lot on the SMT and i found the 27er + r73 combo to be very efficient
Yeah but imo that’s just the gripen being ridiculous, it’s more likely a gripen problem and not a r73 problem… The main issue is the pre flaring of that thing
I dont have a problem shooting gripen with AAM-3 which has same IRCCM as 9M, its a R-73 issue. It’s irccm is implemented like shit or we needed a newer seeker version.
Yeah, we cannot even simply discuss our favorite jets or have a debate on aviation without it turning into about datamine reports or internal game files. The reason is because some people refuse to play the game outside of test flight. Since they refuse to actually play the game as designed and offer any user experience, they rely on outside tools that don’t even reveal all the files in the game and parameters that affect models in the first place.
They think this gives them some sort of authority over the actual players who actually play the game. The way developers want us to play it.
These dudes then will turn around and tell developers how to do their own job and what specific parameters need to be changed. As if they have any clue.
Then when they don’t get their way, they throw a tantrum, call developers bias, blame them for giving us modern vehicles and swear by the gods never to report again at the same time discouraging new players who come to the forum.
They don’t play actual battles. They don’t participate in tournaments. They don’t participate in squadron battles. But instead, they just fly around in circles in test flight and live on the forums to discourage new and actual real players from conducting their own research who politely disagree. People like the individual in question stifle any renewed interest in any given topic because they supposedly knows it all and has done it all.
So, since they have nothing better to do, they patrol and lurk around the forum for topics to reenergize with interest by the community and immediately swoop in to derail and discourage new members from sharing their own fresh research only to talk about themselves and how they already know it all because they have datamine tools.
I find it quite pathetic and actually scary that someone who has me blocked cannot stop referring to me in every single post he makes. Talk about living in someone’s head rent free.
The 9M and the R-73 are kind of apples to oranges in how they are best used. IMO in a 1v1 where both parties are aware of the opponent’s actions and knows that the missile is coming, the R-73 pulls ahead if you can maneuver into a good point-blank side or rear aspect shot. That combined with the high off boresight attack capabilities and an HMD make it the better missile to have in 1v1 dogfight in air RB.
The 9M’s smokeless motor just makes it grossly OP in simulator and ground RB battles. You don’t know that the missile is coming, and not everyone is a grippen with infinite flares to preflare on a whim with wild abandon, so that stealth attack elevates it above everything else full stop in those modes. The 9M has a much greater threat radius since its IRRCM technique is effective at all ranges. While it is relatively easy to defeat if you have an abundance of flares and know that it is coming, it is hard to know that it is coming when the missile is INVISIBLE in sim/ground RB and there is a ton of chaos going on in the air RB 16v16 furball to tax your attention. IMO that makes it the more meta missile. With all of the chaos going on you can just vibe-check several players on the opposing team and every opponent who doesn’t notice that a 9M is inbound will just die since you need to drop everything that you’re doing to defeat 9M’s. That’s why there’s so many kill-streak videos of people taking grippens or F-16’s, flying into the furball, firing off ~4+ 9M’s in rapid succession at different opponents and then getting a string of kills. With the effectiveness of its IRCCM at range and the way that it’s immune to being accidentally defeated by periodic flares, you can just fish for kills with ease from the safety of range while someone needs to maneuver into knife-fighting range to secure the kill with an R-73.
I’ll use the F-15 as a reference point. The Su 27 is significantly better in sustained turn rate at lower speeds, the difference narrows down to about M0.9, above which the F-15 is slightly better.
The F-15 was designed to maneuver at speeds of 0.6-1.6M
The only thing that comes to mind for me are those energy gain curves for 1g, 3g, and 5g.
I tested out the 1g curve for sea level, and it seems that:
At speeds around 350 - 730 km/h there is a small but significant overperformance in acceleration in-game.
At speeds around 770 - 1030 km/h there is a small but significant underperformance in acceleration in-game.
At speeds above 1050 km/h there is a big overperformance in acceleration, which becomes massive above 1250 km/h.
I guess most of us are primarily interested in the 350 - 750 km/h range (energy retention is good at sea level above 900 km/h). So it is probable that the engines output too much thrust (or too low drag at low AoA, or both) at that interval. The sustained turn seems to match the manual, AFAIK, so the induced drag is higher than it would have been if the engines matched the power.
There is also no data of any kind that I know of describing anything related to energy bleed above 9g, which the wanker pulls when it is at 800-900 km/h shedding all of its speed. It could be that the energy performance is somewhat close to 1-9g flight in the game, but deviates significantly past that (assuming we could make the flanker pull 11g in real life, while not braking the airframe and keeping the same weight)
I tried to test out the 3g and 5g curves, but I could not get the aircraft to fly through the entire speed range while keeping the g’s steady enough to make the test at least somewhat accurate.
Ye, the report on the Su-27 maneuvering capability compares it to the F-15 and has a similar conclusion.
However, they also say that this difference in optimal speeds gives the Su-27 an advantage, as flying at high G is not sustainable for the usual duration of the dogfight, in their opinion (i.e. the F-15 pilot would be under a lot of strain and might not be able to sustain the optimal performance).