Yeah, we cannot even simply discuss our favorite jets or have a debate on aviation without it turning into about datamine reports or internal game files. The reason is because some people refuse to play the game outside of test flight. Since they refuse to actually play the game as designed and offer any user experience, they rely on outside tools that don’t even reveal all the files in the game and parameters that affect models in the first place.
They think this gives them some sort of authority over the actual players who actually play the game. The way developers want us to play it.
These dudes then will turn around and tell developers how to do their own job and what specific parameters need to be changed. As if they have any clue.
Then when they don’t get their way, they throw a tantrum, call developers bias, blame them for giving us modern vehicles and swear by the gods never to report again at the same time discouraging new players who come to the forum.
They don’t play actual battles. They don’t participate in tournaments. They don’t participate in squadron battles. But instead, they just fly around in circles in test flight and live on the forums to discourage new and actual real players from conducting their own research who politely disagree. People like the individual in question stifle any renewed interest in any given topic because they supposedly knows it all and has done it all.
So, since they have nothing better to do, they patrol and lurk around the forum for topics to reenergize with interest by the community and immediately swoop in to derail and discourage new members from sharing their own fresh research only to talk about themselves and how they already know it all because they have datamine tools.
I find it quite pathetic and actually scary that someone who has me blocked cannot stop referring to me in every single post he makes. Talk about living in someone’s head rent free.
The 9M and the R-73 are kind of apples to oranges in how they are best used. IMO in a 1v1 where both parties are aware of the opponent’s actions and knows that the missile is coming, the R-73 pulls ahead if you can maneuver into a good point-blank side or rear aspect shot. That combined with the high off boresight attack capabilities and an HMD make it the better missile to have in 1v1 dogfight in air RB.
The 9M’s smokeless motor just makes it grossly OP in simulator and ground RB battles. You don’t know that the missile is coming, and not everyone is a grippen with infinite flares to preflare on a whim with wild abandon, so that stealth attack elevates it above everything else full stop in those modes. The 9M has a much greater threat radius since its IRRCM technique is effective at all ranges. While it is relatively easy to defeat if you have an abundance of flares and know that it is coming, it is hard to know that it is coming when the missile is INVISIBLE in sim/ground RB and there is a ton of chaos going on in the air RB 16v16 furball to tax your attention. IMO that makes it the more meta missile. With all of the chaos going on you can just vibe-check several players on the opposing team and every opponent who doesn’t notice that a 9M is inbound will just die since you need to drop everything that you’re doing to defeat 9M’s. That’s why there’s so many kill-streak videos of people taking grippens or F-16’s, flying into the furball, firing off ~4+ 9M’s in rapid succession at different opponents and then getting a string of kills. With the effectiveness of its IRCCM at range and the way that it’s immune to being accidentally defeated by periodic flares, you can just fish for kills with ease from the safety of range while someone needs to maneuver into knife-fighting range to secure the kill with an R-73.
I’ll use the F-15 as a reference point. The Su 27 is significantly better in sustained turn rate at lower speeds, the difference narrows down to about M0.9, above which the F-15 is slightly better.
The F-15 was designed to maneuver at speeds of 0.6-1.6M
The only thing that comes to mind for me are those energy gain curves for 1g, 3g, and 5g.
I tested out the 1g curve for sea level, and it seems that:
At speeds around 350 - 730 km/h there is a small but significant overperformance in acceleration in-game.
At speeds around 770 - 1030 km/h there is a small but significant underperformance in acceleration in-game.
At speeds above 1050 km/h there is a big overperformance in acceleration, which becomes massive above 1250 km/h.
I guess most of us are primarily interested in the 350 - 750 km/h range (energy retention is good at sea level above 900 km/h). So it is probable that the engines output too much thrust (or too low drag at low AoA, or both) at that interval. The sustained turn seems to match the manual, AFAIK, so the induced drag is higher than it would have been if the engines matched the power.
There is also no data of any kind that I know of describing anything related to energy bleed above 9g, which the wanker pulls when it is at 800-900 km/h shedding all of its speed. It could be that the energy performance is somewhat close to 1-9g flight in the game, but deviates significantly past that (assuming we could make the flanker pull 11g in real life, while not braking the airframe and keeping the same weight)
I tried to test out the 3g and 5g curves, but I could not get the aircraft to fly through the entire speed range while keeping the g’s steady enough to make the test at least somewhat accurate.
Ye, the report on the Su-27 maneuvering capability compares it to the F-15 and has a similar conclusion.
However, they also say that this difference in optimal speeds gives the Su-27 an advantage, as flying at high G is not sustainable for the usual duration of the dogfight, in their opinion (i.e. the F-15 pilot would be under a lot of strain and might not be able to sustain the optimal performance).
The F-15 can go above 9G, in instant maneuvering it can help, in steady turn 9G is too much. Additionally, steady state 9G turn can only be achieved near the ground for all aircraft.
In a manoeuvre fight of these aircraft, the pilot decides, not the aircraft. The pilot makes the plane.
Pages 15-17 for the 1G, 3G, and 5G graphs, full burner
Interestingly, page 26 provides the 5G graph with some of the speed loss regions included.
Page 13 - Instantaneous turn
Page 14 - sustained turn, full burner
Speed is given in TAS. The aircraft weight is not mentioned explicitly, but the wing loading is given as 305\ kgf/m^2. Given the wing area of 62\ m^2 (I think that is the figure, but not absolutely sure) we get the weight as 305 \cdot 62 = 18910\ kg.
The loadout is 2 x R-27 and 2 x R-73. @BBCRF, do you know what С_{у_{доп}} stands for?
