Then post a test demonstrating it has half the low speed SEP of the real plane.
Don’t know how to, if did know how to pull the games data values I would, but I still have the original documents, which even state their current FM is wrong.
So how do you know the Draken’s error is worth more attention if you have no point of comparison?
Like dude at least hijack a thread to push your own agenda correctly.
I’d rather keep the topic back on Russian top tier jets, it’s their flight models, etc which the post is based on
3 Likes
In fact, I am almost certain that the F-15C’s FM will not allow it to defeat the Su-27SM in a one-on-one duel in RB or SB combat. Although the F-15C has a better TRT, it also has a much larger turning radius. For the Su-27, trying to defeat the F-15 is just a matter of constantly keeping a front tracking, using the turning radius advantage to stay inside the F-15, and trying to avoid the two aircraft turning the center of the circle coincidence.
Of course, this is definitely not to say that I think the FM of the top Russian fighters in the game is not problematic. The actual problem is here: it may be realistic on some levels (this is just to respond to some people’s discussion about the turning performance of real fighters), but they need to face opponents with severely distorted FM. You won’t believe that the JAS-39C has a sustained turning TRT of up to 21 degrees per second with minimum fuel and two AIM-9Ms - in RB mode, and this only requires about 400km/h. This parameter is almost equivalent to the maximum sustained turn of many fighters in reality with half fuel and two missiles.
In fact, I put it down to the wrong high angle of attack drag of the Su-27 and MiG-29 series, which is too high, making it difficult for these aircraft to perform sustained turns.
In fact, in this picture (we put the real-world Su-27, MiG-29 9.12 and F-16C F-15C on the same picture for comparison, all data is taken from the real flight manuals of these aircraft), we can see that the turning performance of these aircraft is very similar, and the Su-27’s slow speed turning ability is particularly good, which is completely different from what is shown in the game.
4 Likes
This.
It’s more of a problem with the RB instructor being horrible on the Flanker and Fulcrum, and that some planes at top tier are just overperforming (F-15A and F-16A notably).
2 Likes
Instructor plays a big part, R-73 being too easily flared in dogfights and the fact that the MiG-29 with active radar homing is the SMT plays a big role as well.
Against F-15C and F-16C the MiG-29A easily competes with both of them, and if R-73s were better Su-27 would also be competitive against both F-16C and F-15C.
Thing is many flight models in the game overperform, (Gripen, J-10, F-15A, F-16A among them), so a somewhat accurate fm will obviously feel a boat when fighting ufos
1 Like
I’m not sure about the upcoming Eurofighter and Rafale.
Dunno since I don’t have time to download dev server, but even if they were modelled accurately they’d spank the hell out of the Su-27SM anyway. They are just better
It seems like the delta-canards ingame overperform in energy retention.
J-10A was noted to be worse in prolonged sustained turn compared to J-11.
Gripen’s thrust-to-weight ratio is even less, I don’t think it should be that much better in that regard despite the low drag.
J-10B and J-10C had much better engines.
According to Pakistan Air Force J-10CE forced their F-16s completely defensive for the first 30 seconds, but after that the advantage would slowly begin to crawl back in favor of the F-16.
But they also noted that the F-16 surviving the first 30 seconds was very difficult.
So I don’t think there should be a problem with the instantaneous turn.
The reason delta canards tend to overperform in game is mostly related to the fact that they model the planes as stable, which for delta canards means positive instead of negative. Adjusting lift/drag polars to compensate for that is probably less easy than it seems and, since people demand a lot of stuff each update, they probably don’t even have the time for it.
It’s also the reason why the F-16s are able to pull unrealistic AOA especially at lower speeds without stalling.
Yep, same reason, although in the F-16A case the induced drag at lower speeds/medium-high AoA is not fixed out of pure laziness-extremely wide “accurate enough” standards.
F-16A doesn’t lack any charts for this, after trying to reject it for various minor details they just answered my report with “we don’t adjust low speed turn rate” and called it a day lmao
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xwLVzgjxhsU5
“We usually do not adjust turn rate at low speeds due limitations of available estimations for how AoA affects to Cd and engine performance.
Only peak turn rate performance is adjusted and slightly supersonic”
meanwhile:
.
The freaking polars for the F-16A exist lol.
Simply interpolating the curves on the image below to extend them all the way for Cl ~1.4 would get an easy accurate enough the game estimate. Plus there’s sustained turn rate charts for the F-16A, and they have gotten other planes right from just those.
2 Likes
i mean even the radar can be fixed, there was a change that incorrectly messed up the scan pattern for a bunch of radars which effectively doubled the cycle time - for the mig29A’s and su27’s turned it into a 8 second or so update, compared to all the radars with much faster scan rates to begin you didn’t notice the difference much but with the soviet ones it made them basically unusable. Bug report on that with good sources has been sitting open for 6months but never gets looked at. ( Almost all radar repeat top and bottom bars in scan // Gaijin.net // Issues)
Russia doesn’t even need new weapons or jets, simply fixing what we currently have in all aspects would make it perfectly competitive as is - just it seems devs either deliberately wont fix problem area’s due to various reasons, or lack the capability to address the issues properly in a way that doesn’t mess other area’s up.
3 Likes
That’s really what it comes down to, just fixing what we have right now, if we got buffs instead of new content, then we’d be in a much better place in the future.
But it is clear that the J-10A and JAS-39s perform better than the F-15C and Su-27 even in sustained turns. Although we do not have flight manuals for the J-10 and JAS-39, I believe this is not normal. Chinese pilots have repeatedly mentioned that the Su-27 (including the J-11, etc.) can beat the J-10 in continuous turns, while the J-10 has an advantage in the initial stage after the merge (higher instantaneous turning rate, larger available AOA and smaller turning radius). This is almost the opposite of the performance in the game. The longer the engagement, the lower the speed, the more disadvantageous it is for the Su-27.
2 Likes
The Su-27 is at a much greater disadvantage in terms of SB. The F-16 can easily fly an alarming TRT by trimming, and the Su-27 can’t do anything about it.
I’m not too sure if reverting UFO fighters to normal is a good idea, but the last aircraft to do so was the MiG-23 (and surprisingly, they did a great job).
yeah it underperforms instead because it has armed performance clean
Yes, I said that the J-10A is overperforming in sustained turn.
What I said is J-10A seems correct in instantaneous turn performance ingame, the quoted figure is 31 degrees per second.
But it should not be able to outrate J-11.
J-10B and J-10C will be a different story as drag was substantially reduced through remodeling of the nose cone and DSI air inlet, as well as engines with more thrust.
When we talk about real life, then it is necessary to compare normally. If a modern US aircraft showed good results in the war and destroyed a bunch of Russian planes. That’s in reality and not in the news. He destroyed a bunch of old planes that have not belonged to Russia for several years, as well as in all wars with the support of all who can.
so the concept of “Better as in life” does not exist
1 Like