Why no Su27S flanker at 13.0 yet?

[Morvran]

@Farlexgamer_-psn

If the buffs are possible then why don’t you go and make a bug report for them.

They have already been submitted. Many of them years ago. Like the BOL buffs were reported 18 months ago and Phimat was reported earlier than that.

99% of the “buffs” ive mentioned have been reported. Most of them internally by Gunjob.

@Farlexgamer_-psn

And i can’t advocate for buffs when i’m not given any source at hand to support said buffs

For the F3

Those are BOL:

read this thread: It's time for Gaijin to finally reverse the ahistorical nerf to BOL countermeasures [Poll]

Phimat:

Tornado F3 with Phimat pod on extra wing pylon (top wing in the image, the other wing is TRD that wont be modeled to be functional yet):

Spoiler

or mounted in place of fuel tanks:

Spoiler

It could also be mounted in place of an Aim-9, but I dont have an image for that.

Last we heard from the devs, F3 is slated to get Phimat pods but wouldnt be straight away. That was more than a year ago, so it should hopefully be soon.

as for the FM. Plenty of sources exist, though I dont have them on hand, but Gaijin said they couldnt be bothered to actually fix the FM anymore and are just going to leave it in a half finished state. Gunna try and bug them about that again in the future.

Other buffs like C5s can be easily sourced if you look up the Tornado F3 FSP.

[WalletWorrier]

@Morvran_

Just give the soviets a 13.0 Premium of some description. Like a Mig-29K?

Don’t you dare

[Morvran]

Got a better idea for a 12.7/13.0 premium? (genuine question, navalised Mig-29 seems like a sensible option)

[kizvy]

All naval mig29s would get r-77s, and 4 r-27s and the yak 41 radar, so I doubt they can be 13.0. They can add a mig-29s 9.13 which is a upgrade package to the mig 29 in the Russian tt that can carry r-27er and r-77 irl, but gaijin can just give it r-73s as the 13.0 equivalent to the 29g (still slightly worse than the 29g cause worse engines and slightly heavier, but other than that its a good equivalent imo)
Technically image of mig 29m but it has the same hard point options as navalized mig29 so it works

[quartas121]

those are real low BR. i can see 11.7-12.3 for the 25 and 13.0-14.3 for the 31 depending on weapons and variant

[Morvran]

Not necessarily. Swiss F-18 should have AMRAAM but doesnt. Loads of aircraft should have things like 9Ls but dont. etc etc.

There is no reason why they couldnt add a navalised Mig-29 with R-73 and R-27Es

Also, there seem to be the option for adding a late variant too:

Mig-29K-9.31
Mig-29K-9.41

So loadout wise. cna be anything, though yeah, a direct Mig-29G equivalent would work too.

[Morvran]

Id guess about the same for both.

[FeetPics]

The EM diagram that you can find for it online shows ITR of 18 degrees per second. The plane is already capable of that.

ITR of around 18 degrees per second for bleed rate of -200 meters per second according to primary source.

In game ITR is around 18 degrees per second with flaps up.

It increases to around 20 degrees per second with flaps down.

So what are your sources that it’s underperforming?

[Morvran]

You would need to speak to fireball but the bug reports are here:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/G0hNRVTt9FPG
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9OpdpbD16gvm

They were closed due to the game engine not being able to model them any better. As you can see low speed STR is underperforming but more importantly ITR at all speeds is underperforming.

They also have too much drag which has eaten a chunk of the max speed as well. We should be like 0.2-0.3 mach faster than we are currently at sea level. Let alone if you include combat thrust which is currently modeled for the Mig-23Bis

But Again.

First things first is to replace the 320 micro-CMs with full performance BOL and add 1-2 Phimat pods.

After that, weapon buffs are available for both 12.0 one and the 13.3 one if needed. (heck, could make the F3 Late into a 14.0+ if you wanted. Technically… it did mount and fire Meteor)

And in the future TRD and other game mechanics not currently modeled. Heck Tornado F3 vs Su-27SM would be rather unfair IRL as the Su-27SM wouldnt actually be able to use their radar once the F3 had locked on as it 100% jammed it.

[FeetPics]

@Morvran_

They were closed due to the game engine not being able to model them any better. As you can see low speed STR is underperforming but more importantly ITR at all speeds is underperforming.

This is nothing out of the ordinary as far as flight models are concerned. And from the looks of things he did not make any attempt with different flap settings. Also there is no telling whether or not he used full real controls. I know he did not use them in some of his previous reports and instructor does limit ITR.

Here is another example of report basically Gaijin saying that FM is close enough.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/J1mzJ8riGkkg

There is behavior in high speed STR that Gaijin F-16 FM does not adhere to as well if you compare it to EM diagram.

[Morvran]

@FeetPics

Here is another example of report basically Gaijin saying that FM is close enough.

Community Bug Reporting System

That says something entirely different. That report says the player made a mistake in the report and its close enough.

F3 report clearly states the game engine isnt capable.

This has been confirmed already by Smin and Gunjob that the FM is staright up underperforming but the devs wont be attempting to address it further due to the game limitations. Which is why I plan to bring it up probably sometime next year because hoopefully by then, some or all of the limitations might have been removed.

In the meantime:

• Full strength BOL
• Phimat pods
• Missiles buffs if needed
• AoA Toggle
• TRD/ECM?
• Pilot Hand Control / Navigator modeling?

Let alone the big one and to bring it back to this thread:

ADD A 13.3 BRACKET TO SB

[FeetPics]

@Morvran_

That says something entirely different. That report says the player made a mistake in the report and its close enough.

Dev literally says FM is close enough and except for Mach .5 anomaly. They also think he might have measured wrong. However it is RiderR2 report and he rarely gets those things wrong since he tests with full real controls and trim.

If you actually take time to overlay turn information from the game vs the real EM diagram you will see that F-16A has region where all the turn rates overperform and region where all turn rates underperform.

[UniqueScorpions-live]

All depends on what they get for weapons.
Merely a starting point, not concrete.

[FeetPics]

Brit MOD says MiG-25 has like a 12 degree per second sustained turn rate. Even with it’s advancements it’s not like the MiG-31 will be significantly better.

I want the plane but also realistically it will be abysmal garbage for most people to play outside of lobbing funny Phoenix equivalent missiles from across the map and hoping for the best.

It’s flight model performance would basically be equivalent of something like the Tornado…maybe even worse in some regards.

[quartas121]

@FeetPics

Even with it’s advancements it’s not like the MiG-31 will be significantly better.

it can do mach 1.2 around the deck instead of subsonic like the 25. better TWR too i think

[FeetPics]

I have the aerodynamics manual somewhere.

The plane is kind of a turd for WarThunder purposes. Like it’ll be neat to gun kill someone with it in sim with the gun pod that is 30 feet below the pilot…but it’s really going to be a gimmick plane.

[quartas121]

R-37 are very dangerous though, those will be a game changer

[FeetPics]

I doubt they add them any time soon. We are more likely to get R-40. The game right now isn’t really structured or ready for even longer range missiles.

Also multipath on Denmark makes missile go sploosh.

[WalletWorrier]

Well the MiG-29K’s primary armament is the R-77. It’d be better than the SMT, deserving of 13.7 in ARB. Even without R-77 it’s got an additional pair of hardpoints that can carry R-27s as well as a much improved radar, RWR, MAWS, and much more powerful engines compared to first-generation MiG-29s.

As for ~13.0 Soviet premiums there’s quite a few options-
Su-27P: Su-27S but without bombs. Pretty bland but simple and effective.

Su-27K: Prototype designation for the Su-33. I wish the Su-33 was TT and this was the squadron. It’s mostly here for reference.

Su-27IB: the prototype of the Su-34. Unsure what sort of armament it could carry; it’s so late it’s early and I don’t want to do any deeper digging.

Su-27: pre-production batch with AL-31s instead of AL-31Fs. No idea on the performance difference. Since the Su-27S is designated just Su-27 im-game (to be fair this was historically used as well) might be a bit confusing.

Su-27UB: twin-seat combat-capable trainer. Unlike the MiG-29UB it still has its radar fitted so it can still use SARH missiles and whatnot. The Su-30 (AKA Su-27PU, the Su-30SM we have in-game is a much later model) was basically an Su-27UB with upgraded radar.

MiG-29S/SD/SE: Upgraded MiG-29 and two export versions, all pretty much the same as a basic MiG-29 but with access to a pair of R-77 on the R-27 pylons (and R-27E, R-73 which ofc weren’t specific to these models). Probably 13.3 unless Gaijin just doesn’t give them R-77 which wouldn’t be too unreasonable IMO.

MiG-21-93: What would become the UPG, with avionics upgrades and access to R-73, R-27, and R-77 (which the Bison should also have)

MiG-23-98: My personal pick, a MiG-23ML with R-73, R-27, and R-77 plus an enormous avionics upgrade to roughly MiG-29SMT level

MiG-31BS: MiG-31 Izdeliye 01 brought up to MiG-31B standard (we’d of course need the 01/01DZ and 31B first or at least at the same time)

And for a “direct MiG-29G equivalent” there’s also the 9.12 which would be pretty much identical (so a bit less interesting IMO than most of the options above)

[Pvt_Wade]

@WalletWorrier

Su-27K: Prototype designation for the Su-33. I wish the Su-33 was TT and this was the squadron. It’s mostly here for reference.

have to also mention it doesn’t have an RWR

@WalletWorrier

MiG-31BS: MiG-31 Izdeliye 01 brought up to MiG-31B standard (we’d of course need the 01/01DZ and 31B first or at least at the same time)

have to also mention it doesn’t have countermeasures