Unrelated, but what was the final reasoning for Khod not being added to the SU39? The bug report gives little insight.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
yes, there is no dynamic drag, but as far as I know from the developer, the average value tried to be chosen loyally so that the rocket would be closer to real performance.
If you have collected data that the R-77 is lagging far behind what it should be, you can try to pass it on to the developer
As far as I know, there was some doubt about his existence. Now I have brought it up again and perhaps I can tell you later the results.
I still hope that now that the AV-8B (NA) is available, the Su-39 and Su-25T should get the Khod
1 Like
Thank you brotha. I know you’ve been a big proponent of it. Hoping we can finally get it and maybe SAPSAN in game.
Yes, it was chosen as an average to let it match medium altitude performances as they have done with all ordnance. The R-27ER is missing 100 m/s of its’ top speed and is underperforming by as much as 25% in maximum range scenarios. The only missiles so far that have been modeled for a high alt and high speed scenario is the Phoenix.
The information has already been passed on, the R-77 has been configured like any other missile. The unique grid fins are not currently modeled as I said earlier - it is too much work for one single piece of ordnance. We already spoke with Stepanovich about this specific issue.
4 Likes
everything has been in this topic for a long time
3 Likes
I don’t understand why the developer bypasses those opportunities to give thermal imaging for Soviet aviation where it is available.
If the Sapsan is not in the game, the next thing we will see is the T-220.
1 Like
Can anyone check or it just me situation, but on J-11A (still a Flanker tho) R-27s are floating on underbelly (between engines) pylons
Edit: They also float then I put them on under engines pylons
Hello everyone,
I wanted to know if someone that actually does threads on in-development vehicles could create a topic on the Su-33 UB or the Su-27KUB which is a twin-seater version of the Sukhoi 33. This version of the flanker was tested on the Admiral Kuznetsov in the late 1990s and was accepted into service in 1999.
Here are some pics to show you.
It uses the same armament as the early Su-34 prototypes and was used for training and for ground striking.
Here are my sources: _Su-27KUB (Su-33UB) – Su-27 Flanker Family
_[Dossier] Le Sukhoï Su-27KUB: une opportunité manquée? – Red Samovar (text is in French you gotta translate)
Also you can ask @WreckingAres283 for the manuals & technical characteristics of the Su-34’s armament.
I think it would be a very neat addition to the game right after or right before the Su-33 (which isnt in the game yet) and a new baby to the flanker family.
I really hope someone will have the same enthusiasm as me regarding this beautiful machine and that they will create a topic on whether or not should we implement it into the game.
Thank you for your time reading this and I wish you a great day & / or night!
HTM out.
Oh boy, it gonna suck in Sim due reduced visibility (look at Su-24M as example)
yeah sure but in life it would be the same and there are more players that are going to play realistic battles rather than simulator… that’s just far-fetched.
Even though if you look at the last picture we can see the canopy’s visibility is kind of okay to be honest, the glass goes all the way down at knees-level.
Sooooooooooo, any word on the FM getting fixed? I’m kinda losing hope at this point
4 Likes
Honestly just forget about it brother, the community did everything they could.
5 Likes
Shame, the flanker is my favorite plane. It’s so cruel they nerfed it to dust
2 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pMIS9A3vdNzU
@Gunjob decided to not forward the report because, after all the not correctly made previous bug reports (all made with incorrect weights and at too high speeds), the devs decided that, after likely testing the Su-27 at those higher speeds, that performance is “correct enough”. I’ve tried to explain in DMs that in my report I exactly followed what where the previous instructions from the devs (used the 20200kg weight the devs said to use before
)
and that 0.5 and 0.3G at such low speeds makes a massive difference (especially because low speed and high AoA sustained turns are directly related to energy retention).
Still one can do so much
14 Likes
Please do not tag staff to demand them to do something. This report has been answered as to why it cannot be forwarded as its already received a developer response with these sources.
1 Like
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.
11 Likes
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.
1 Like