Ah, checked up on it. I’m an idiot
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
Is it not?
MythicPi is making accusations so I think it is fair that I should be able to defend myself.
I have a fairly good memory as far as my interactions with other people go and I can also just go look at my own history to get most of the facts straight.
And when people have routinely bad takes I tend to remember them. Heck I remember killing you with an Aim-9M and the A-10C on Denmark probably a month or so ago while you were trying to dogfight an F-5E near the island.
Heck I remember you claiming that the F-14 was the best plane in the game around 2 years ago and claiming that the MiG-29 needed the R-73 back then in order to be competitive in Air RB. This was before the flight model was nerfed to it’s current state by the way.
I also remember you claiming that the Su-27 flight model was accurate or even over-performing when other people were saying the opposite.
3 Likes
2 Likes
1 Like
MythicPi
He still believes that Raphael defeated the Su-35 in Egypt with the help of EW. Although this has never actually happened
6 Likes
The even more funny thing is that the Flanker seems to lose to the Eagle one-circle at similar fuel conditions currently
2 Likes
It is in regards to sustained turn rate, all the other takes are still accurate.
How are you gonna do a 180 and defend him all of a sudden? Oh, and of course you’d remember if you shot me down. I’m notorious.
At the time you seemed to believe that it was accurate in terms of specific excess power.
- The flight model has not been changed since this conversation.
- There have been at least 3 bug reports that have been made using the manual as a source and showing that the sustained turn rate does not match the manuals.
The reason that you are kind of infamous amongst the War Thunder community at large is because of your inability to ever admit that you are wrong.
Who am I defending? Myself or MythicPi?
In all fairness to Mythic Pi, he fell into trope that Su-27 flight model is actually very good in sim. This is a common enough occurrence that any time it comes up I offer for the player to prove that it really isn’t and that it’s pretty reliably beaten by NATO flight models and exploiting its lack of specific excess power is pretty straight forward.
Also I made mental note of killing you with A-10C because I was surprised you never weighed in on A-10C and Aim-9M being at 11.3 in Sim. And I was wondering if you would stick around in a game where you were not doing well in.
5 Likes
At best they are roughly equal and it just results in mutual head-on in the first turn.
1 Like
What I said and what you claim I said are two separate things entirely
The weights used in the reports were incorrect and in specific scenarios that I was involved in testing it was slightly overperforming if the weight the devs gave was used. What is the point?
So you put words in my mouth so I’m wrong?
Do you have DCS’s mig29 and su27 modules? I think it would be interesting to see how these planes behave compared to their war thunder counterparts, if they are correctly following the g charts etc. This have absolute no value for reports it’s just out of curiosity.
1 Like
They are also incorrect, @BBCRF and some others work on a mod that has a far more realistic flanker FM.
2 Likes
but is it as shitty as the one from wt?
No, no it’s not. Instead their MiG-29 has better SEP and pulls much higher G’s than the war thunder model. Something like 17G’s handily iirc.
I have not played DCS in quite a while.
3 Likes
damn
I have the Su-27 module but I have never gotten around to testing it. At some point I will do a follow-up to some of my videos about War Thunder flight models and how they compare. But it’s quite an undertaking to actually present an opinion and show evidence that isn’t just “boo hoo Gaijin bad torch the company HQ”
DCS also has similar problems with the way that SEP is modeled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1f1ge1u/a_list_of_remaining_unresolved_items_in_the/
For the F-16 at 10000 ft, GW=22000 lbs i.a.w the EM diagram:
- The calculated SEP at Mach 0.74 was -543 ft/s, which was less negative than the expected -800 ft/s from the -1-1 manual. This suggests the simulated F-16 is bleeding energy slower than expected at high speeds, which means overperforming in SEP.
- At lower speeds (Mach 0.62, 0.58, 0.55 and 0.52), the calculated SEP values were more negative than expected, indicating underperformance. (Bleeding energy faster than expected.)
For the F-18 at 15,000 ft altitude, GW=33325 lbs, fighter escort loaded i.a.w NASA paper and GAO report:
- The calculated SEP at Mach 0.75 was -417 ft/s, much less negative than the expected -800 ft/s. This suggests the F-18 is bleeding way less energy than expected, indicating significant overperformance in SEP with 48% error.
- The aircraft is not reaching the expected angle of attack (34° AOA, the lift limit) at corner speed, indicating an overestimation in the lift model, that the aircraft is not pulling as much AOA at the same speed and altitude.
I think the reality is that correctly modeling SEP in either game is something that is incredibly difficult to do.
2 Likes
6 Likes
Modelling it isn’t the hard part, the hard part (setting aside delta canard aircraft for a minute) the devs have is finding information to build an accurate lift-drag polar and thrust curve. They use sustained turns because it makes calculations easier, if they could they would always use polars and installed thrust curve.
SEP is also extremely sensitive to lift-drag changes. A small drag excess that causes a little less sustained turn at (for example 400kph speed will be amplified by 3 times when pulling same AoA at 700kph)
1 Like
We always get to this “dead end”, the biggest question remains:
“If it follows the G charts, does it mean it’ll automatically show the correct SEP value?”
If it’s not the case then we need to think how to get into it, @BBCRF could share some of his methodology used to model the flanker mod
2 Likes