Well they just decompressed brs so, while both J7E and F8U br are embarrassingly low, gaijin may just need time.
Sad to say it, but F-4EJ 99% sure is overperforming too lol.
If I start reporting all this shit I guess I would need to disappear from the forum for quite a bit, I’d make a lot of people mad lol
They’d unironically probably try to doxx you for “ruining” their toys, there’s a lot of idiots without a life around the internet
Sadly gaijin saw that pushing modern vehicles out fast sacrificing accuracy worked for them in tanks and decided to do the same shit for aircraft.
I would have been even fine with it as long as prop gameplay did not end up suffering because of it, but now 1.0-5.7 is full of people that are there to just grind and not to play the game.
Used to sit around 2.0 k/d in props, last month for props I am probably over 9 lol, most people are bots (and most deaths are from people doing sucide headons, actual deaths by good players in dogfight have become rare).
Anyway to make top tier more accurate one would need to start testing basically every aircraft for sustained turn and confront it with the manual.
In which areas?
Personally i would like to see accurate EJ on lower br.
Not to be mean but,
Guys, please discuss aircraft totally unrelated to SU-27 somewhere else please.
Gripen/F-16/15/Mirage-2000/MIG-29 are fine, since they are direct competitors to SU-27, at same BR range.
But please keep stuff like F-4EJ that will never ever see the SU-27 out of this
(but yes, F-4EJ being same BR as the best F-4E variant, the KURNASS sums up Gaijin’s joke balance)
Sustained turn, especially at lower speeds…
I’ve been a bit harsh on gaijin/the whole game looking at how I wrote things earlier, but the main reason for the over performance are 2:
Missiles used to have higher drag than real life 3 years ago, and most E-M diagram for aircraft have missiles onboard, so that now results in overperforming aircraft.
Second reason is that some manual use the “load factor” n_z (perpendicular to the aircraft velocity vector and to the airflow) instead of the “normal load factor” N_z (which is perpendicular to the aircraft body).
This is especially important for aircraft whose flight model was adjusted after a bug report, because most people do not know (and I don’t blame them because both are usually only labelled as “G load” or just “load factor” in the manuals).
What ends up happening is that the aircraft N_z values (N_y in local host because Russian manuals seem to use Y instead of Z for the axis perpendicular to the wing) ends up being tuned to follow n_z values, and this results in a higher turn rate than real life, because for the same turn N_z < n_z.
I’'ve found about that very recently (yesterday actually) when looking at the F-15A, because turn rate values didn’t match while overload was matching F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion - #2492 by Giovanex05 (see this also for additional details)
yep sorry
Weelp, guess we can get back to talking about the somehow supercruising Su-27 then. Anyone got anything saying this is accurate, cuz im pretty sure its not.
Fair enough, will do.
The delta wing suffers from airflow separation at lower AoA than conventional style wings - causing excess induced drag in turns. Has nothing to do with length of the plane or low thrust.
Mirage 2000 has a single engine
Any idea if later flankers got more flares compared to the ones we have in game?
Drag hasn’t been implemented to the Chinese tree it seems. Their missiles the same
17-18% lighter than earlier models with a 90’s designed wing and flight control system. The aerodynamics were greatly improved.
Yes it likely overperforms but as you said - no data
M2K is extra weird tbh, especially at high speed and roll is pretty agit which it’s not supposed to be.
you mean like irl? thrust vectoring high AOA maneuvers nuke your energy state.
Even the F-22 is vulnerable to this as shown in numerous air show demonstrations.
Yeah, I know it costs a lot of energy. I was exaggerating. I was picturing something like the coyote from the road runner cartoon dropping straight down after running past a cliff’s edge.
R-73 isn’t a “win dogfight” button in the 27 or 29, because you literally cannot keep a F-15/16/Gripen UFO in your gimbal limit of the missile if they have more than one brain cell. After a few seconds, you will be going 400kmh with them right behind you. Even if the R73 was completely 100% unflarable you have 0% chance to win after the merge, because of the flight model
Another bug report.
This time about airborne radars failing to update the track file for a spotted target. Seems to be happening much more with radars that scan slow (mostly Soviet).
It could also be an overall issue with bar spacing being too high (bars usually spaced so that there noticeable overlap in the scanning beam, if there little/none, targets might go unnoticed when they are in between bars)
And another one about contrails not rendering if you don’t have your radar on.
.
.
Aaand, the last one for now, about radar getting stuck in acquisition/locking.