This is clearly rage bait
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
13 Likes
Time to see if the SU34 gets thermals/a pod. T220 has been spotted on it a few times.
Not holding out hope on that one, though.
I’m actually fine with the winrate tbh, i just want to dance in the air with my flanker and my fulcrum
1 Like
I mean, thats fine, Im just not a fan of REDFOR players pretending they lose because the cards are stacked against them. BLUFOR aircrafts do tend to be better in top tier sim, but REDFOR aircrafts arent that far behind in air to air either. You could also argue that REDFOR just didnt have a good mixed role jet ever, but the Su-27, which is the backbone of REDFOR in sim atm, does just fine in that role.
REDFOR players cant expect to win the game if they arent even trying to do so, and blaming the aircraft is a cheap way to avoid responsibility imo.
Sim EC is won on tickets, and objectives bleed the most tickets, avoiding objectives and focusing purely on PVP like a lot of REDFOR players do just isnt a recipe for winning. Meanwhile everyone and their mothers complain about “zomber” BLUFOR players that arent that good but just grind bases into dust.
Try to beat my F-16C in any Russian top tier fighter once. Put the $$ where the mouth is, and no, I’m not talking about your behind… lord knows it’s jealous of what’s coming out your mouth right now.
11 Likes
…We literally have data that suggests that the Flanker is not conforming to the performance that it should have in real life. So you’re saying that we shouldn’t restore the irl performance because its “not terrible?”
The instructor pulling too much AOA is one part. The underperforming FM is another thing altogether.
8 Likes
No, i was asking for what the claims were based on because anecdotally it seemed to be performing as id expected it would. If its underperforming, fix it, but i just see a lot of claims and no sources, and respectfully, i dont attribute much to claims with no sources.
Nah the FM matters little for the current environment, the planes perform fine for the current matches, but we want the thing to behave like how it should.
Giovanex made a series of reports on a lot of aircraft but all of them were denied, the devs will only fix stuff if they want, even if you show them sources and shit. Also i strongly recommend you to read this thread, it doesn’t have anything to do with the su27 but with other jets:
7 Likes
So the entire thing is just a shitpost so you can pretend I’m still blocked even though forum staff has confirmed you read and sometimes falsely report my comments?
5 Likes
Sorry, do you really want Patriots as Airfield AAA?
Do you want something like this DEAD ZONE??? This is 45km of diameter
(have in mind that from AF to AF there is only ±70km)
This is how it looks with 70km of radius on an 100km x 100km
Cant wait to take off and having to land bc i am already on patriot´s range
I wouldn’t be surprised if either the maps got changed or they would probably just slap them at some place on the backline of the map. Although I can see Gaijin just nerfing the range.
also its warthunder so stat card range means almost nothing
Im actually wondering if were getting new bigger maps this update. It seems we might be getting the rumoured new engine, hopefully its capable of larger map sizes, since afaik the current map sizes are limited by the engine
1 Like
Both the MiG-29 and Su-27 have abysmal instructors, and in the Su-27 case most people imho carry to much fuel with it (flanker needs around 60% of F-16C fuel time for about same endurance).
That said the Su-27 has overperforming engines which were compensated with extremely high drag which kills energy retention when pulling hard and instead give it the ability to gain speed too quickly when doing lowish AoA turns (not too low because non induced drag is also too high since the aircraft somewhat matches (like it somewhat matches Sustained turn with AB on) acceleration diagrams when it doesn’t climb/turn.
Further proof of this is that the in game flanker follows this thrust chart that doesn’t include losses (quite sure about it since it’s from engine manual and MiG-29 has a similar chart that I’m 100% sure doesn’t include losses)
7 Likes
Ty for the info :)
1 Like
I don’t play SIM but from what I’ve understood the problem is that in the soviet tech tree right now you either get decent FM or good radar, not both. Also F-15C and F-16C are the only two aircraft that are somewhat accurate on blue side. At the very least they are the only top tier planes so far that (together with the MiG-29) match every major chart decently well. M2K fm seems to also be decent. F-15A and F-14s over perform slightly, F-16A over performs a lot, Gripen and J-10 are most likely bs
2 Likes
They might artificially nerf the patriot range or add new maps, it’s the only way i see these working properly ingame. Either way i’d be pretty satisfied.
Its def an issue, but its not as substantial an issue as its made out to be imo, mostly since as I stated earlier, REDFOR players just tend to be better players in air to air combat.
My whole general points were:
- BLUFOR jets are better in sim
- REDFOR planes arent as bad as ppl pretend they are (ppl act like theyre literally unplayable and total trash)
- Player skill seems to pretty easily make up the difference in air to air, which tends to be why REDFOR pilots on average have better KDR’s than BLUFOR players
- REDFOR players focus air to air very hard and lose because of it
At the end of the day, this is just anecdotal from myself and the other players I play with, so take it with a grain of salt. But ive just never been worried I might miss out on ground strike targets while playing REDFOR, while playing BLUFOR is often a race to objectives.
I cant speak to exact numbers, but I do believe both are overperforming, tho likely not by much. The J-10A is very similar in aerodynamic layout to the Gripen and Rafale, with the performance (afaik) being Gripen → J-10A → Rafale. Modern canard deltas with FBW systems are tremendously well designed aerodynamically. One thing that concerns me is that the J-10A SEEMS to have a very similar EM chart to the numbers ive seen and the described flight profile of an EFT, which it arguably shouldn’t match afaik (different wing/canard set up with significantly lower TWR).
That being said, Im only going off what I understand of some relative differences between certain aerodynamic layouts, so I might be wrong.
During Chinese exercises, Flanker pilots had to take J-10A two-circle (which they could pretty easily win) instead of one-circle. From what I know, instantaneous pull of the J-10A seems correct (supposedly 31 degrees per second max) but it may be overperforming in sustained turn/energy retention.
Thatd make sense, afaik close coupled canard tend to have the advantage in ITR due to their ability to enhance the wing vortices during high AOA and provide more lift (something many planes tend to use close coupled strakes or LERX for). The EFT on the other hand uses long moment arm canards for increased control authority at higher speeds (iirc?). EFT is a dominant 2C fighter (tho also quite capable in 1C) while the rafale (Gripen and J-10 as well by extension) should be very strong 1C fighters. The AMK kit on the EFT is actually to improve the 1C performance via the addition of LERX and larger control surfaces iirc.
Strake (red), LERX from AMK (green):
Vortex formation form a static LERX:
