+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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
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.’’
1 Like
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
3 Likes
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.