It’s interesting to me that MiG-21 and MiG-23’s engines have their war thrust setting, yet MiG-29 doesn’t.
If MiG-29 has war thrust it should help it out quite a bit in terms of energy retention/sustained turn rate, as well as acceleration and climb.
The MiG-29 engines are super nerfed, whether with afterburning or not, and everyone knows that, but in a very strange way, gaijin continues to keep this artificially like this.
hitting people with a fox 3 in f15E is by all means fun they should add everything well after aim7s and r27ers and not split modes it is so fun killing people from more than ten miles away
i just dont enjoy it so its far more fun to rely on skill instead of how good your missile is
Interesting, I’ll have to read through these all.
If you are interested in seeing more documentation, contact me
Because in real life Russian planes are garbage…
1 Like
That’s not an excuse for imbalance.
1 Like
If we talking real life then a lot of russian stuff should be fixed to meet their “Garbo irl” and if you want real life you could go and join your nation army instead of larping in a russian made game.
1 Like
That is not an excuse for a video game. Which is what War Thunder is, it is a game that can be balanced to make things fair for everybody.
I would not trust this article as it gets basic facts wrong, it says the R-77 is lighter than the AMRAAM when it is in fact heavier
This is incredibly delusional, it’s as maneuverable as the best F-4 Phantom’s and has acceleration to mach 3 at 18 km.
Don’t conflate having an actual fuel range with poor performance.
where does it say it
first paragraph of the first image
Sure.
I don’t care to dispute that.
F4U-4B also faced Mig-15s in korean war.
Me262s hunted B17s, Lancasters and the like. (lanc vs me262 is technically possible in full uptier)
Gloster Meteors flew over WW2 germany.
A6M5 zeros fought against F4F wildcats
A6M5 zeros fought against F6F-5 hellcats (possible in-game at max uptier bracket)
rudimentary russian planes fought against advanced Bf109 variants.
PzIVs fought against IS-2
Sherman fireflies faced off against King tigers.
Should we make it so F4U-4B can face Mig-15s in the matchmaker, or do we realize that for an enjoyable video game, we should balance aircraft and tanks so that they have an even chance fighting each other using the right tactics that don’t rely entirely on numerical superiority or excellent teamwork (the F4F wildcat ended up carrying the war in the pacific despite the plane because of U.S pilot rescue/training/veteran instructor program allowing experience and teamwork tactics to outlast japanese aces’ lifespans, something beyond our in-game considerations).
If an aircraft cannot be balanced against its intended in-game competition, maybe it should not be added in an ever-foolish pursuit until toptier is weird NGAD fighters without tails and whatnot. Planes should be added in such a way that their intended competition has an even fighting chance (even if using assymetric tactics and some rock paper scissors exists - like bf109 is more maneuverable than p-51-D mustangs, but p-51-D mustangs have spitfires on their side to occupy the bf109s and whatnot).
I was reviewing the original pdf with the Russian translation and if there is an error in the translation
While the article mentions that the R-77 has a “slightly lower launch weight” than the R-77, this can be read not as a lighter or smaller weapon, but simply the ability to maneuver freely when launching the missile. The R-77 uses lattice-type control surfaces. That quality gives the R-77 an advantage. The capacity of the R-77 cannot be probably so inferior to that of the AMRAAM but more than anything they are different situations,
1 Like
the article does not seem like a trustworthy source
The book is very good and provides a lot of reliable information; just because of one error, it does not make it useless. There are many books that encounter such translation issues. The rest of the book is reliable, and it’s just a small mistake. I don’t see why this should affect the comparison.