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
Honestly just forget about it brother, the community did everything they could.
Shame, the flanker is my favorite plane. It’s so cruel they nerfed it to dust
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
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.
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.
And I assume the F-16 on the other is only overperforming a little by like 40% ? Right xD
Also I’m worried we may never have news on the Ny/ny post about overperforming FM.
It worries much more than the current Flanker FM
1 by 1 bug report are gonna be slow as hell
The report was not forwarded because the sources and tests within have been examined twice before and each time received a response:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NnsJ3fscrl7R
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OcyfPfZLY902
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.
Would it be, like, out of the question for me to ask for the sources used to model the Flanker?
Even if you don’t have it, or the devs don’t change it, I just like having info on the Su-27.
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)
They should be in the manual.
In the su27sk one?
That or the original, one of them has a thrust chart iirc.
Do you have the original one? Because if it is similar to the MiG.29 one there are polar charts available which would straight up solve any issue
The developers and perhaps a couple other members have this chart, I had it at one point but I do not currently know where to obtain it.
@_Fantom2451 may be of assistance. Or maybe @Gunjob can provide a copy.
If you need Su-27SK book 1 & 2 I have those on hand though.