Clearly you don’t see that this nerf is almost nothing, and that the Mig-29s AOA is still heavily nerfed?
I was making these posts with the “F-16 getting it’s Turn rate nerfed” part already in mind, It doesn’t change much, the F-16 still dumpsters the mig-29 when irl performance suggests otherwise. The Performances should be at parody not a one sided slam.
I get the feeling the MIG29 got the drag nerf to purposefully shift to F-16 dominance in order to quell discord in the community before the next release of a Soviet Air superiority fighter, maybe in December? Either that, or to boost the desire for people to pay their way down F-16 lines.
We all realize that the nerf to the 29s FM is not historical.
I got the feeling than the 2 top dog aircrafts are currently getting themselves way over EVERY OTHER Native aircrafts,…
Therefore, we don’t care that Both F-16 or MiG-29 are nerfed, since you already overcome anything else.
And btw,… most of those nerfs are made in order to make you able not to ditch the plane in the ground, going in unrecoverable inverted flat spin,…
If you really want true maneuvrability, go in Simulator mode.
Tell the other nations to build more aircrafts then. (Jokes aside, your update is coming soon)
Incorrect, Sustained / Instantaneous Maneuverability is done without instabilities to the aircraft like 20 / 24 / 25 / 28 / 30 Degrees with medium to medium high speed in mind ( Instead of pulling 60 Degrees of AOA to force a flap spin), meaning Gaijin always has the ability to buff turn rates / aoa of aircrafts in a realistic setting without making the aircraft go unstable. This is because Realistic as a Setting has many parameters kept the aircraft sustained turn rates in check in order to restrict many factors that would allow an aircraft to make itself go out of control (This feature is known as the Instructor / non simulator settings).
That being said, The Mig-29 received many AOA nerfs (I know of 2 nerfs) in the past. This means that the aircraft can easily have a higher AOA and handle it easily (Since the Instructor exists), What Gaijin is doing here is completely artificial and could easily be fixed.
a 30% nerf isn’t ‘nothing’.
As for your opinion about the F-16 v MiG-29, in both DCS (your choice of going there first) and ‘IRL’ (pointing to the F-16C v MiG29 in the early 90s). The F-16C should absolutely dominate the MiG-29 over 200knots in a two-circle, the biggest issue they had was the archer missile, not the airframe itself.
“…over 300knots the F-16 will get it’s nose around faster than the MiG-29 can” comes to mind, while noting that under 200knots the MiG-29 had a similar rate, and better acceleration than the F-18.
Two circle fights are a function of Turn Rate to my understanding, parody isn’t exactly what the match is given the F-16C can do that to majority of Gen 4 aircraft out there. This being said, expecting Gaijin to have an accurate flight model is a bit of a farce given the instructor allows airframes to do things that the airframe in question could never achieve (Glaring at you A6M). Thus the question comes to gameplay balance and to be honest…lot more people are going to be far more angry if you pitched the MiG-29SMT as it is against the F-16C without a helmet mounted sight and 9Ps.
Not always the biggest fan of this but, most people seem to enjoy US Jets (casual glancing at queue numbers, not hard data don’t murder me) so no point in overly upsetting them given that the Ground game is completely Russian dominance (at least as far as I knew 3-6months ago, don’t do the high end tank game much anymore)
+o(
A Pure 30% nerf? I’ll have to test that with some friends, because there is not much commotion being made about this change.
About “your choice of going there first” the engines yes, AOA no. Real Life Mig-29 has been put through many stress tests to see where the AOA sustained Turn Rates could be kept at, along side the main goal was to strengthen the Airframe to be able to pull 9Gs. The Uncapped AOA capabilities (No limiter) is 25 Degrees Sustained and 28 Degrees instantaneous, However with the set AOA limiter (For safety purposes) that would be 23.5 Degrees Sustained and 26 Degrees instantaneous. In game its 22 Degrees Sustained 23.8 - 24 Degrees instantaneous. This is a Flight Model problem.
In DCS at low speed 1 circle dog fighting, the Mig-29 is no slouch and gives the F-16 an extremely hard time, this is due to AOA Sustained / Instantaneous. Again FM problem.
Incorrect, It was a mixture of dogfights with and without missiles. You’re only claiming that the Archers were the only thing that made the Mig-29 a threat, however Many pilots testimony and Experiences can explain that the Mig-29s nose Authority and turning capabilities was extremely good. R-73s were good of course, however giving the Mig-29 to the best experienced pilots proved troublesome for the F-16. (This is not to say that the F-16 is worse) With Proper AOA configurations wining in some of the mock fights were possible.
You’re absolute Right, That’s because the Mig-29 is a better 1 Circle Dogfighter. However at low speeds the F-16 is always pulling ahead which makes 0 sense, IRL Mig-29 Nose Authority was present all the way down to 100kts. In WT Nose starts stiffening up at 550km/h after pulling instantaneous, then lags behind at 20-21 Degrees a second, which is quite pathetic.
F-16 is able to get its nose on first, however when both aircrafts starts to get slower the Mig-29 out performs the F-16 in turning / Nose Authority while the F-16 has to rely on Rate Fighting in order to out rate the Mig-29 and get onto its 6, Currently its a one way Slam. The Mig-29 cannot get its nose on and the slower both aircrafts get the worse the Mig-29 becomes (F-16 also can rate fight well, But that was already a forgone conclusion). Again FM problem.
Besides some IRL performance detail corrections, You pretty much knew most of the stuff you said. However the Mig-29 IRL performance is not correctly emulated in War Thunder. AOA Extreme Restrictions are quite annoying.
Either way, we just gotta wait and see.
Reports are not hidden in any case unless they have offensive content.
My phasing incorrect. The original thread post was removed by the owner after it was rejected. It wasn’t taken down by mods.
Either way, Mig-29 AOA is still a big problem as I’ve mentioned before. Real life AOA limiters were never set to 24 Degrees, This is just artificial. I’ve already cited an extensive breakdown Thread post. (Any other sources doesn’t have a single mention of 24 Degrees being the instantaneous turn limit of the Mig-29) I’d recommend using what I’ve shown to give to the devs to reconsider.
and if the answer is no, Is there an explanation for the historical performance of the Mig-29s Current Flight Model? I’d like to learn why.
There are some report with answers from developers:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/H409F96xHyZa
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Sfm5AWKu1dEJ
my fault, It seems you found the reports I was talking about.
I looked at the answers, Its quite underwhelming and needs more detail.
It doesn’t matter anymore, since that is the end of the road.
I’ll just leave it off here.
Well, I can go further into details if needed :)
go for it.
watches
What do you want me to explain?
Btw the guy that knows the most and that made the reports says this on the thread post:
‘‘In my own personal opinion, the MiG-29 is fine as-is. It performs as it should according to all available charts that I can find and compare. The instructor allows people to pull a lot of AoA as needed, it works great for me. Any suggestion to change how it is now will be nothing more than a suggestion. Gaijin likely won’t acknowledge it or make changes.’’
If a discrepancy between the schedules in the aerodynamic manuals and in-game can be found, it is something we can report.
Until evidence of this discrepancy is shown, there is nothing to discuss.
Yes, indeed
Well, to be honest I hardly think either of them are correct. And I also don’t think that Gaijin particularly cares about the 4th gens being correct in terms of performance…
At least some of them.
Correction, they’re correct now. I’ve seen the oversight in my judgement. 2nd Generation Mig-29 Airframes are what’s being mistaken here with Mig-29 1st Generation Airframes. The Thrust Efficiency loss for static performance is also correct.
The Only thing that is incorrect is the Oswald Efficiency number, the number should be 0.85.
Same with the Su-27 Flanker, the Oswald Efficiency number should be 0.71
However when I use the vehicles in game, they have too much drag.