Relative to all manuals I've seen, the SU-27 is underperforming in sustained turn, and to some extent even in low speed rudder authority. The issue is that the community has become INCREDIBLY toxic to any discussion relevant to Soviet vehicles since the Ukraine war, to the extent that suggesting that any Russian vehicle could have an issue that doesn't benefit it more or less gets you downvoted to oblivion on reddit or dogpiled anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, Gaijin hasn't helped things either, the R-27ER is so insanely overpowered that it makes the SU-27 seem strong despite it's useless RWR and crap flight performance, so most arguments don't go beyond "well it's missiles are OP so why should it be buffed". Of course next patch AIM-120s will more than likely bring the F-16C back to being the top dog and the SU-27 will lose it's one saving grace, so maybe then people will be willing to discuss it more seriously.
Would it be cool with you if i did a similar style video. Instead of it being the flanker it would be focusing on the mig29. In my opinion i think the flight model of both the flankers and fulcrums are very bad but i think the mig29 has it much worse.
Now that we have Fox3’s I think we can have it reworked and buffed, Blue side has the best when it comes to range and gun fights, as a Red and Blue player, playing Red means I have to stay at a medium distance inorder to have a chance but if somebody pushes me or decides to stay out of my range it’s pretty much over.
What a scandal! I bet this guy doesn't even have a Mirage 2000! In fact, the Su-27 nerfed is even more serious than indicated in the video. In addition to the underestimated energy conservation (about 1.5-2 times), the Su-27 radar had an antenna with an area almost 2 times larger than the MiG-29, and in the game these are the same radars. The flight manual indicates the detection of a "fighter" type target (we are talking about the F-4 RCS) at a distance of 100 kilometers, not 50, as it is now. Plus, the R-27 datalink should update the trajectory of the missile even from TWS, Which would turn the R-27 into a semi-Fox 3
Gaijin is fully aware that the flight model is under performing compared to real life. Its just that the that they gave the USSR a bunch of bullshit missile that doesn't have been added. They want the USSR to be a 0 skill tek tree that is getting carried by there missile. You can also see this in the mig 29 which is also under performing.
The whole USSR tree was about the flight performance and skill before the MIG29 and R27ER (Yaks 3-9, Migs 15,17,21) and the weapon or ammo was always meh than other countries (derp guns on Mig15-17 or shitty GSH23). Idk why they changed this idea
The reason why it’s nerfed in the game is because of its armament. They gave it a nerfed flight model because it has the best armament. I agree it totally sucks but it’s for “balancing”
Yes it has the best armament in game but that's the only strength the Su-27 has and 99% of the time you don't use all those 10 missiles. Something like the Gripen dominates so well because it's a small, fast, has the best flight performance in game and is easy to use (The fact that it outrates an F-16 is diabolical), Can spam flares 24/7 making IRCCM missiles useless against it and can sling 6 Aim-9Ms itself. The Su-27 is already a really big aircraft so it wouldn't be that hard to kill even if it did have a good flight model and 99% of dogfights never happen in war thunder.
I dont think it has objectively the best armament in the game. You can avoid them by having nore than a few braincells and the right amount of chromosomes
Good vid and i agree with your points about it being too much if it had accurate flight model, but, BUT, hear me out, what if, the snail, simply didn't add vehicles that would break the game if given correct flight model... oh wait gripen with UFO levels performance is in the game and tiny flares that somehow are equivalent to normal ones, plus the ahistorical AIM-9M cuz why not. Plus honestly, considering how radar guided missiles behave and don't hit under 50 meters, FOX-3s won't change shit, so Su-27 will be forever gimped.
If you buff the Su-27 into the dogfighter that it is irl, NATO countries really can’t fight it. And that’s with the overperforming F-16’s. It would simply become the best (or close to the best) BVR and WVR fighter. Then again, war Thunder is still really arcadey in how games play out, BVR is pretty simplistic and there’s usually a lot more that goes into aerial combat that is not in the game. There’s a reason why the F-15’s usually beat Eastern jets in BVR, Even with the sparrow
i was thinking like this before but it really isn't the truth, even after the fox3 changes the aim120 still far outranges the r77 and has proven to be more reliable, russian jets had the upper hand in bvr before with the r27er but they've lost that one advantage after the addition of fox3's, russian jets such as the flanker were made to dominate dogfighting with a tight 1 circle to sling off an r73, they wouldn't be great ratefighters if you implemented a realistic flight model, they'd just be able to 1 circle without bleeding as much speed ( meaning you can pull high aoa first turn and still have enough speed to keep up in the dogfight ), it would be a good dogfighter if players don't dodge an r73, it would be deadly in a 1 circle but 2 circle and long duration ratefight it really wouldn't beat american jets, with all that being said, america would still have more advantages, such as better avionics(radars,rwrs...), better bvr capabilities,higher countermasure quantity, and overall more versatile flight models even if the flanker got a buff
Squish don't forget, the Flanker has Automated Flaps turned on since day one. When the flanker gets below 700-600km/h your flaps will automatically extend slowing you down all the time and restricting AOA. I've made a bug report on that.
I didn't forget about it...I just didn't end up including it because the video is already rather long. Also the way I was reading the flight model changes...I thought the OE for flaps out and flaps in was the same. It's not but I think it's fairly close. It's like .47 vs .44.
@squishface80085 Not like it matters, the Planes Drag is so bad that the flankers Thrust to Weight means nothing. I really don't like it when Gaijin implements a vehicle with the idea of a representational gimicks, instead of souly focusing on historical data. The Flanker is supposed to out rate the F-15 and the F-16C starting at 800km/h Yet it loses to the F-15 by almost 2x worse then should be expected. No Nation has modern Fighters that are as Poorly implemented and nerfed as the Flanker. The Changes made with the F-16A G limiter and the F-15s Sheer scuffed FM over performing, gives them above average rate abilities then what the charts suggests. Yet Gaijin is scared to death on fixing the Flanker.
Even if they don't give the flanker a 1 to 1 accurate flight model, it's still somewhat similar to the real thing by the looks of it, I'm working on something about the gripen it does still need a nerf, I found some evidence but it's not full proof. If you can find more evidence make a video, essentially my theory is the Gripens energy retention is higher than what it should by a small amount, not as bad as the m2k's and sustained turn rate is higher by 2 to 3 degrees than what it does now.
@jaek__ can be pretty aggressive and pesky to deal with, but in a sustained turn rate fight or energy advantage it can be easily beat, the only challenge is how aggressive it can be for the first few turns. Gripen does the same just way better atm and sometimes either out rates or just sits behind the enemy.
@anthonyrivera1727 I mentioned the m2k because the gripen needs a nerf in its energy retention, but it won't be ad bad as the m2k's, because irl the gripen did have some good energy retention, better the m2k's its why I brought the m2k up
@@WOLFER. I would not characterize the Mirage 2000 as being "easily beat" in a rate fight. Pretty much anything that isn't a Block 10 F-16 or a Gripen is going to struggle against it. That is doubly true because of how Magic 2s work now.
Also, not sure if you'll see this comment, but if you do you should take a look at the J-35. None of them have been able to cobra since their FM change a year ago. Like, nowhere near the 90+ degrees AOA you can see in IRL footage, they max at 60 degrees AOA in game. I reported it but I'm shit at reports so it didn't really go anywhere.
That’s exactly what I think about it, if they buff the FM it’ll be waaaay too good with current in-game missiles (even with R-73’s that also perform much worse than irl but still good enough to almost break the game) So I think they won’t do a thing with Su’s FM until 9X’s (and other high off-boresight missiles for all nations) are added
This is what i think; im always a full proponent for completely conforming to irl performance of everything. That being said, i also agree that completely fixing these high AoA & IRCCM Hobs missiles could potentially shift balance a great deal. The real question is; would it shift the balance equal to or past the level of advantage blue team has had over red within the last two patches? Maybe, im not sold but i could see it potentially happening - the 9m effect and avionics advantage certainly is extremely strong though. Ideally i would like to see them immediately fix the FM's to irl specs and let br be the sole balancing factor. This though would likely require a dive into mig29 bleed rates and oswald efficiency numbers such that it is fixed in the same regard at the same time, otherwise there is potential for a TT gap br wise since flankers would likely go up. However, I would *maybe* be ok with a staged implementation stopping when that level of acceptable practical advantage(if any) is reached - only so long as we had a tangible and official promise that the full realistic performance will 100% come the moment other hob's missiles are added for other nations. This is also assuming that multipathing isnt changed next patch towards realistic levels and we dont get a fox3 capable flanker, as in this case the balance would likely lie somewhere between even to slightly blue leaning, even with a full fm fix - therefore no staged implementation would be needed.
As much as I do want things close to realism, and I want to see the devs actually actually make sure the material they use is correct (which it often isn’t) I feel like there’s a huge issue with them being incredibly lax about what planes they actually apply the rules to. The F-16A is a perfect example in my opinion. Why is it that, it’s apparently ok for that thing to have the fm it currently does while basically everyone knows it’s wrong, while for other planes you have to fight tooth and nail for it to maybe get a form of buff because of what gaijin believes is true. Either every plane needs to stick to realism, or none of them have to. Having a few that just grossly over/underperform because of such inconsistencies while others have to stick to an fm of which the rules of physics actually apply to just leads to both a balancing nightmare in some cases and an incredibly frustrating relationship with the devs because everything will look like it’s just down to double standards. Anyways, good vid, really hope you’ll get somewhere because I’ve personally just given up on the bug report system. Good luck my guy
Gret job comrade Squish! :) This is the direction we need to take if we want to achieve something, instead of ranting about biases and so on. Did I see you in an F4F (Wildcat) the other day in sim? Wasn't sure it's you.
From the looks of things...yes. There is someone else working on a bug report for 29...but at a glance it ends up underperforming by about the same margins at low speeds.
The buff would be great tbh. The Flanker is good but in WT everything else just has a busted FM. When i fly the flanker i start off with 25-30 min depending on the map with only 8 AAM. The plane with more than 20 min of fuel is just too heavy. I get it, big ass aircraft but when a f16C block 50 can out nose to nose you at damn near every speed index is obsurd lol.
Honestly as a US main i think that the su 27 is in an ok spot because i feel that when im in sim and i have to BVR a su27 it kinda just beats me every time either because it has better missiles or my aim 7 just flops for no reason but I see that the su27 has a good turn performance (at least from what i see) I fly the F15 and don't know how the block50 does against it but i think Gaijin atp should give the US Aim 120's(not rn but for later aircrafts) and an hmd for 15 or just make the aim7 a bit better and then just give the su27 and mig 29 the better flight model. I feel that it would make SIM a lot more interesting and make the 2 aircraft better in their own respective ways. And also extra opinion but i think Gaijin should give the F15a its actual radar it had in real life and buff the wing g overload cuz i swear those wings just snap like twigs.
I have never ripped wings in the F-15 while playing Sim. It rips more often in RB because of the way instructor does rudder input to my knowledge. The easiest way to beat any radar missile in sim is just flying low. Anyone that is trying to do realistic BVR in Sim is usually just baiting themselves to get slammed by radar missiles launched from the bottom. This becomes especially true if the lobby becomes populated because it's just like RB where there are too many missiles coming from multiple directions to realistically notch everything.
If you are losing to an SU-27 in a dogfight, even if it has r73s... I have to say it dude but you suck at dueling. I never, NEVER lose to flankers in the F-15 or F-16 (but I also dogfight in air rb) but I've never had any issues with beating flankers even on Sim.
@@toyotawitha20mm35 honestly I'm not gonna deny that i might be trash but like ima f15 main so when flankers are able to use the R73 with hmd your kinda at a disadvantage, and the fact they get r27er and et's, those missiles are just better than what the us gets.
@@squishface80085 I agree that it's good, just when some sources say that at mid to high fuel it should be pulling at least 10% more, and at low fuel and around 700kph it should have an AoA on the level of the mig 29
I always use the damping mode in SU27 when I have to dogfight, I find it much better, so yes it restricts its aoa a bit but it loses less speed and it remains very maneuverable.
What is the source on that? Because everything I've been able to find has said the Thai Gripens use Aim-9Ls and didn't really provide any indication of what the J-11s used for their IR missiles. A lot of really crap defense journalism websites picked up on the story and reposted it when I think the actual facts are from a presentation that a PLA pilot provided at a Chinese university.
In such an exercise, they obviously wouldn't *actually* fire their missiles at each other, they probably counted it as scoring a point when the missile got a lock and could be fired with some probability of it hitting. So the actual tracking of the missiles is irrelevant beyond able to lock on to a target. With the amraam, that would only mean a radar target being tracked by the plane. But I'm just guessing here. That the gripen dominates in BVR isn't surprising.
@@squishface80085I have seen the pic from their weapons brief before the fight. I’m happy to send it over. It was 9L/M vs R-73, which handily favors the TVC missile in a dogfight. Without the R-73 I would have after the Gripen would win far more.
What is the F-14A Early supposed to be capable of according to it's manual? Generally speaking...anything Mach 2 and above is a speed taken at very high altitude and it isn't extremely relevant in the way that War Thunder plays out. I think that the nerf/inaccuracy of the Su-27 flight model is a lot more relevant in the way that the game currently plays.
@@squishface80085 I'm gonna be quite honest, I don't know. Many sources state Mach 2.3 at optimal altitude however despite many attempts to look trough the F-14's manuals I could not find proper information on the acceleration and top speed of the aircraft. That being said, there are instructions for maneuvering under *combat load,* these statistics go up to Mach 2.2
or you can simply try not to pull more aoa than you need and shoot an r73, honestly the su27 is not bad, it can perfectly beat everything it's not a gripen , f16a,above all else, you still have the opportunity. the one that worries me are the mig29 that is falling in pieces currently it only beats the mig23 and inferior aircraft
The Su-27 absolutely falls to pieces in a dogfight against F-16A, F-16C, F-15A, and Mirage 2000...even if you factor in the R-73. I can point you in the direction of at least half a dozen players that will beat your Su-27 80+% of the time in a dogfight.
@@squishface80085 Come on, that is simply exaggerating, you should go with the 6 27er plus the 4 R73 and 40m of fuel and the enemy without missiles and 10m of fuel for that to happen, I would believe that about the mig29 but the su27 It works great for me in sim and in realists, but this makes me think that what you call dogfight is reduced to ratefight-turnfight
@@davidborrazvelazquez8407 It's not an exaggeration. Once someone knows how to fly around the R-73 HMD aspect and pre-flare...it just comes down to who can gets guns on first...and all of the planes I have mentioned will get there first. This is something a lot of people in my server have practiced pretty regularly ever since the Flanker came out. It works great in Sim EC because the average player in an F-15 or F-16 is clueless.
@@davidborrazvelazquez8407 that works for you well for the same reason as for anyone else in any plane in SB lobbies - most players don’t know that they can drop fuel tanks, don’t know that they can drop heavy af radar missiles, don’t know that they can pre-flare, use flaps, keep their speed, be above the Flanker etc etc. Once you face a worthy opponent in literally any non-Soviet plane who knows what he’s doing - you’re done period. It can’t win even against block40 barak II(the worst F-16 in the game). And once you’re out of missiles your opponent will be able to play with you as long as he wants like cats play with their food cause due to speed bleed the Flanker can’t even neutralise the fight without becoming a stationary target
Exactly, people who say this absolutely suck at dueling. I have no idea how they are losing to the su 27 or winning in it (going against retarded pilots) @@squishface80085
The HUD footage is completely useless. You don't know the aircraft, you don't know the loadout. You don't even know if they've been removing hardware (as is common in former Soviet air forces especially during non-combat or airshow situations). The final study is also useless. Models of that size are well known to change results substantially to the point of very weird wing profiles and planforms becoming optimum. It really doesn't give anything useful. The study on Oswald efficiency also doesn't seem great as the Oswald efficiency will vary very significantly based on flight profiles. It isn't a static number as the page seems to imply. What is useful is the manual. That clearly shows what we should be expecting of the aircraft giving the very specific situation and very accurate data. The data clearly didn't match. So something is wrong. My guess is that the game treats Oswald efficiency as a constant figure when in reality it varies substantially. If they used a higher efficiency for low speeds they would get something ridiculous at high speeds. So they're left making the aircraft semi-accurate where you'd expect a lower efficiency but obviously it underperforms where the efficiency should be higher. In other words the flight model is wrong, though it's completely understandable given it was designed for semi-accurate simulation of WW2 fighters only and not supersonic low aspect ratio high AoA modern jets. Even so it likely just needs to remain gimped. The real world flaws of the Su-27 won't come across well in game. It has incredible missiles. It has great nose authority. That gives it great instant lethality in a way which isn't fun to play against if you don't have the same rapid kill capacity. But then it's avionics are terrible, it's swichology is terrible, the radar and other systems are inconsistent, everything is hard to read and understand, the incoming information is terrible. None of that matters, avionics aren't modelled remotely well enough, swichology doesn't exit in the game, radar doesn't generate faults and doesn't have errors, everything is read through the game's own HUD, things like the RWR and radar have their own in-game version miles above the Su-27's barely functional system. The aircraft was designed in the real world to require constant GCI management, that doesn't mesh with an arcade game like War Thunder. So it's just never going to be an accurate sim for the plane. For many modern planes as none of them can be modelled properly, actually.
What hardware would they remove while keeping the airplane in flying condition? This is obviously not an airshow demonstration so it is not likely that the plane has had any of it's avionics removed or had the fuel load completely minimized to save weight. You can see in the original video that R-27P is shown in the HUD selection which implies that the plane is carrying at least some quantity of missiles. The testing that I did was with 2 R-73 and 2 R-27ERs and minimum fuel. This heavily weights the test in favor of the War Thunder flight model unless you believe that the VKS trains with what amounts to vapors in their fuel tank. The data that is in the manual or at least the data that is present on the page does not give specifics into speed bleed for high turn rates. We do know that the plane is underperforming by probably a degree or two per second at low speeds but this also has follow on implications for bleed rates IMO. Currently the Su-27 having a mediocre radar and bad RWR is already modeled in Sim. It's one of the big complaints that everyone else has about the plane in comparison to Western fighters. And the IRST is rendered nearly useless outside of ACM mode due to the way that Gaijin made the interface.
@@squishface80085 There's still a fair amount which can be removed. The most common is radar and cooling systems. Even using a radar whilst we can clearly see it was there and tracking we don't know precisely which was used and there's a pretty substantial variety which could be used and a pretty large amount of supporting hardware which may or may not be there. That's particularly relevant given the incredibly rare R-27P you noted as it requires substantially less hardware to fire. I'm assuming that's a radar track at least as I'm not familiar with R-27P specific HUD cues and the missile's sensor certainly would be capable in producing the data displayed. Along with that there's a lot of supporting sensors, IRST, RWR, jammer supporting hardware which is regularly removed. The jammers were commonly not used at all so that's often removed as it allows for less maintenance. The aircraft in flight shows are almost always taken from the combat line and prepared by an extremely substantial removal of hardware so there's a chance that's the case. It's unlikely they're keeping the reduction in redundancy like fewer fuel pumps and removal of some hydraulic supporting systems as that's a legitimate safety risk, but it's still on the table given that was also the type of thing done for some airshow performances. Ultimately we don't know anything about this video other than it's existence so trying to pull meaningful data does anything but hinder your argument. I think you misunderstand my point. I've agreed that the War Thunder data is faulty. I've agreed that the aircraft is underperforming. My point is that we can't conclude anything from a video we have absolutely no details on, and we can't create meaningful information from studies which have no useful information. The manual data gives everything we need to calculate speed bleed. It's a rudimentary calculation. We have L/D, we have zero lift, we have sustained turn rate all in that same graph. That's everything we need to calculate bleed rates. If we get more data (like engine thrust vs velocity and altitude) we can do better, but we can already get the real aircraft within about 5% accuracy. As you correctly deduce the low speed performance is heavily tied to bleed rate, and actually is often used as a substitute for explaining high g bleed rate in many cases. So the low speed being so inferior here strongly suggests bleed rates will be worse than the real aircraft. Typically 10% is the level of significance in air combat so if the aircraft is underperforming by 10-18% it's already a decent problem. But at least from your presentation it seems like that might be quite substantially more than that. Though interestingly from the testing I personally did some years ago it seems to be performing better than the DCS Flanker so a decent argument could be made for War Thunder, though I'd strongly suggest the DCS Flanker doesn't have the same engine errors and simply underperforms as many aircraft seem to. The IRST being useless is pretty accurate. Nose to nose the original IRST had ranges well inside WVR. Tail on it was a lot better as expected, perhaps about 25km at altitude from memory? But from the War Thunder gameplay I've seen the radar is still outperforming it's real world counterpart. It was very rudimentary and relied a lot on analogue computing. But in War Thunder you obviously wouldn't expect a good simulation of electronic warfare, of coarse doppler binning, or of poor internal gain control to name but a few of the many problems. Either it's generically bad or it's generically good, not the brute force power and very rudimentary tech of the real thing. The RWR was borderline useless, only telling you "some type of unknown aircraft in roughly this direction" for one target. Then every other threat was lit up the same so you'd know there were some SAMs, some aircraft, a spread of directions, but not know which was which. Incredibly hard to understand and only really useful when you're already being fired at, and barely useful at that. The entire aircraft was as hostile to its own pilot as possible and near-impossible to comprehend. Simple tasks became monumental challenges, constant switches everywhere. So much the sim really can't do, you're never going to need to flick 5 switches mid dogfight. It's genuinely impressive people could deal with it before the avionics updates came to fix it all.
R-27P is just the HUD nomenclature for the R-27R. There is no indication in the video that any equipment was removed from the plane or that the plane would be significantly lighter than the one that we have in War Thunder. I have seen no evidence that removing major hardware systems...i.e the radar...is common practice in VKS training. Furthermore you can see that the radar is being jammed at the beginning of the original video...which means the plane has a radar...and the plane that it is engaging likely has a radar jammer. We can't generate specific data from the original video because there are too many unknown factors; i.e what the fuel load is and what modernization is present in the video. But I also think that it is reasonable to conclude that the footage we are seeing is between two planes in some form of combat configuration; i.e that they are not stripped out airshow airframes. As far as making a direct comparison to DCS...I have already considered this approach and I don't think it is all that useful because. The EM diagrams that I have seen generated from DCS do not correspond to their real life counterparts in meaningful way...especially where ITR and bleed rate is concerned. But for the sake of the argument...the last that I checked...the DCS Su-27 EM diagram at sea level shows a bleed rate of around -1200ft/sec for a 30 degree per second ITR. The War Thunder Su-27 experiences -2052ft/sec at the same data-point...at least that is according to the flight model testing program a friend has made. I haven't verified it for myself. I am not really going to go down the whole rabbit hole of how War Thunder simulates in-cockpit systems because that is just a big can of worms. Essentially my opinion is that all systems in the game are extremely under-modeled as far as the user-interface is concerned.
@@squishface80085 My point isn't that it was likely the equipment was removed, my point is that we can't be certain what equipment was removed, what upgrades it had, what changes had taken place. That makes it completely useless as a point of reference - what would it be a reference for if we don't know what it is? The fact that it happens at all with any slight regularity in the USSR Su-27 fleet means it's usefulness is marginal at best. Especially when we have the very best evidence possible already in the form of the airplane's manual, and as I said it allows a pretty good estimation of the full chart with power deficit and power surplus with an actual known configuration. It's not just it's use as the absolute best possible evidence for P0 which can be read easily. Even if we had the aircraft's configuration for the HUD video it would be far less accurate than calculating the same power deficit from the chart anyway (along with giving a lot less data points) so I'm really not sure why you would be so focused on trying to take the HUD data at all. The comparison to DCS is more an interesting point than a useful answer. You stated your goal was to fly an airplane close to sim. My point was the DCS data was just as wrong as the War Thunder data (both clearly wrong) but the airplanes are still able to feel fairly accurate and have the tactically meaningful differences accurate to the real world allowing for useful DACT. The data is arguably less accurate than War Thunder on paper but it's still considered by far the best hardcore flight sim yet. So whilst it would absolutely be better for War Thunder to make accurate data, DCS has shown that the planes can still feel good and fly "right" despite being wrong on paper. Here the issue seems to me to be the War Thunder flight model which you correctly noted is just a bit of a mess. That said if we assume your figures from DCS are correct then it's likely not as bad as my testing some years ago. It's possible they changed flight model, it's possible we're just using different configurations. My testing was primarily at 25k and 15k feet as those are pretty common in DCS. However I have seen a number of ex-military pilots complain that the aircraft they flew in service (F-18, F-14, F-16) all lost airspeed far too quickly and felt clean as if they were fully loaded down with tanks and heavy weapons. Again some of that was a few years ago when I was still able to play properly but at the time at least almost all of the aircraft in the game were far below where they should have been but the aircraft flew and fought well. Even if that has changed today the point remains, WT would likely do better trying to improve the abysmal balance and improve the ancient flight model than prioritising data sheet performance. It's very likely that if they matched the Su-27 to it's datasheet at low to mid subsonic speeds would become horribly overpowered at high subsonic through to supersonic simply because the flight model seems far too dated to handle supersonic jet aero. As for the avionics and switchology, don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for it to change. Most War Thunder players don't want DCS or they would be playing DCS (and DCS lacks a lot in terms of EW/avionics simulation anyway). WT has become popular by being effectively an arcade game with decent flight physics able to handle the fun part of dogfighting. It's why I advocate for the game so much as a learning tool. They should improve what they're doing well - a PvP game allowing for a simulation of complex air to air scenarios and emergent realistic tasks. Adding switchology and avionics would only serve to scare most players away, unsurprisingly they don't want to be reading an 800 page manual for each aircraft. My point was that the Su-27 on paper should be an absolute monster, completely overpowered. Everything the game simulates the aircraft does well. So they're obviously in a difficult position where the aircraft's flaws don't exist as a game mechanic and they obviously can't add those mechanics to the game. R-73, best in class instantaneous turn in a game which prioritises instantaneous turn more than the real world. Tons of missiles, R-27T to boot, then just about every other metric it can at least hold its own. I'm not saying I personally think it should be unfairly nerfed but it's certainly understandable if that becomes the route they plan to take given how ridiculous it would feel for the dated baseline Su-27 to be dominating 4+ gen fighters.
Sorry..typing on my phone so I cannot address all of the points as in depth as you might want. As far as the HUD footage goes...I would be inclined to agree with you if the margins were not nearly as large. If I was trying to use the footage to show that the bleed rate was 5-15% different (these are just numbers...not calculations) then I would be inclined to agree with your sentiment. Even then...I am very up front in the video that there are things we cannot deduce in the HUD footage alone...i.e the modernization level of the plane. At the same time...to seed the claim that the bleed rate difference in game vs observed might be explained by the plane in the video is some stripped out Su-27 seems rather ridiculous. It's like saying that a Porsche 911 will cut its Nurburgring time by half by removing the air conditioning. As far as the DCS comparison goes...the EM diagrams that we can source that are applicable to real life vs the DCS versions...the bleed rates in DCS are higher than real life...at least when it comes to the diagrams I have looked at. For example the F-16C bleed rates are significantly higher than the publicly available diagram. This might actually be fine in DCS if all flight performance metrics are skewed in the same direction...i.e the F-16 bleeds 50% more speed than IRL...but also the MiG-29 and F-18 do as well... because at the end of the day the match up should play out similarly to real life...even if the actual time and physics of getting there is wrong. The problem is that War Thunder kind of throws that out of the window from what I can tell. The F-16A has the ability to pull 45 AoA. The Su-27 falls out of the sky and loses a pure 1 circle fight to the F-15. The MiG-23 MLA is the best sustained rate fighter in the Soviet tech tree. The Gripen has a bleed rate of 1/2 that of any comparable fighters...in game or in real life.
![เปิดบ้าน พี่ตูน Bodyslam หลังใหม่คนแรก ที่ภูเก็ต l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/flFwcmyDQSk/mqdefault.jpg)
Relative to all manuals I've seen, the SU-27 is underperforming in sustained turn, and to some extent even in low speed rudder authority. The issue is that the community has become INCREDIBLY toxic to any discussion relevant to Soviet vehicles since the Ukraine war, to the extent that suggesting that any Russian vehicle could have an issue that doesn't benefit it more or less gets you downvoted to oblivion on reddit or dogpiled anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, Gaijin hasn't helped things either, the R-27ER is so insanely overpowered that it makes the SU-27 seem strong despite it's useless RWR and crap flight performance, so most arguments don't go beyond "well it's missiles are OP so why should it be buffed".
Of course next patch AIM-120s will more than likely bring the F-16C back to being the top dog and the SU-27 will lose it's one saving grace, so maybe then people will be willing to discuss it more seriously.
Would it be cool with you if i did a similar style video. Instead of it being the flanker it would be focusing on the mig29. In my opinion i think the flight model of both the flankers and fulcrums are very bad but i think the mig29 has it much worse.
I think when they add the fox 3s they should fix the flight model of the flanker
Now that we have Fox3’s I think we can have it reworked and buffed, Blue side has the best when it comes to range and gun fights, as a Red and Blue player, playing Red means I have to stay at a medium distance inorder to have a chance but if somebody pushes me or decides to stay out of my range it’s pretty much over.
i think they might buff it after fox 3 update as r27er wont be considered as broken op at that point
Guys, I think Squish didnt have a beer today
It's more like I only had 1 beer because I drank the other 11 the night before.
What a scandal! I bet this guy doesn't even have a Mirage 2000!
In fact, the Su-27 nerfed is even more serious than indicated in the video. In addition to the underestimated energy conservation (about 1.5-2 times), the Su-27 radar had an antenna with an area almost 2 times larger than the MiG-29, and in the game these are the same radars. The flight manual indicates the detection of a "fighter" type target (we are talking about the F-4 RCS) at a distance of 100 kilometers, not 50, as it is now. Plus, the R-27 datalink should update the trajectory of the missile even from TWS, Which would turn the R-27 into a semi-Fox 3
Gaijin is fully aware that the flight model is under performing compared to real life. Its just that the that they gave the USSR a bunch of bullshit missile that doesn't have been added. They want the USSR to be a 0 skill tek tree that is getting carried by there missile. You can also see this in the mig 29 which is also under performing.
The whole USSR tree was about the flight performance and skill before the MIG29 and R27ER (Yaks 3-9, Migs 15,17,21) and the weapon or ammo was always meh than other countries (derp guns on Mig15-17 or shitty GSH23). Idk why they changed this idea
The reason why it’s nerfed in the game is because of its armament. They gave it a nerfed flight model because it has the best armament. I agree it totally sucks but it’s for “balancing”
Yes it has the best armament in game but that's the only strength the Su-27 has and 99% of the time you don't use all those 10 missiles. Something like the Gripen dominates so well because it's a small, fast, has the best flight performance in game and is easy to use (The fact that it outrates an F-16 is diabolical), Can spam flares 24/7 making IRCCM missiles useless against it and can sling 6 Aim-9Ms itself. The Su-27 is already a really big aircraft so it wouldn't be that hard to kill even if it did have a good flight model and 99% of dogfights never happen in war thunder.
I dont think it has objectively the best armament in the game. You can avoid them by having nore than a few braincells and the right amount of chromosomes
But yeah ur prolly right thats why they think they did it
@@saplingseedsaccrew3143 I've heard they have really nerfed the F-16 flight model too.
It's just extremely lazy, gajin is lazy.
Id say we review bomb until they buff the flanker. I disliked the game
Good vid and i agree with your points about it being too much if it had accurate flight model, but, BUT, hear me out, what if, the snail, simply didn't add vehicles that would break the game if given correct flight model... oh wait gripen with UFO levels performance is in the game and tiny flares that somehow are equivalent to normal ones, plus the ahistorical AIM-9M cuz why not. Plus honestly, considering how radar guided missiles behave and don't hit under 50 meters, FOX-3s won't change shit, so Su-27 will be forever gimped.
If you buff the Su-27 into the dogfighter that it is irl, NATO countries really can’t fight it. And that’s with the overperforming F-16’s. It would simply become the best (or close to the best) BVR and WVR fighter. Then again, war Thunder is still really arcadey in how games play out, BVR is pretty simplistic and there’s usually a lot more that goes into aerial combat that is not in the game. There’s a reason why the F-15’s usually beat Eastern jets in BVR, Even with the sparrow
i was thinking like this before but it really isn't the truth, even after the fox3 changes the aim120 still far outranges the r77 and has proven to be more reliable, russian jets had the upper hand in bvr before with the r27er but they've lost that one advantage after the addition of fox3's, russian jets such as the flanker were made to dominate dogfighting with a tight 1 circle to sling off an r73, they wouldn't be great ratefighters if you implemented a realistic flight model, they'd just be able to 1 circle without bleeding as much speed ( meaning you can pull high aoa first turn and still have enough speed to keep up in the dogfight ), it would be a good dogfighter if players don't dodge an r73, it would be deadly in a 1 circle but 2 circle and long duration ratefight it really wouldn't beat american jets, with all that being said, america would still have more advantages, such as better avionics(radars,rwrs...), better bvr capabilities,higher countermasure quantity, and overall more versatile flight models even if the flanker got a buff
@@zehi04 my comment is now out of date with the fox 3 additions
Squish don't forget, the Flanker has Automated Flaps turned on since day one.
When the flanker gets below 700-600km/h your flaps will automatically extend slowing you down all the time and restricting AOA.
I've made a bug report on that.
I didn't forget about it...I just didn't end up including it because the video is already rather long.
Also the way I was reading the flight model changes...I thought the OE for flaps out and flaps in was the same. It's not but I think it's fairly close. It's like .47 vs .44.
@squishface80085 Not like it matters, the Planes Drag is so bad that the flankers Thrust to Weight means nothing.
I really don't like it when Gaijin implements a vehicle with the idea of a representational gimicks, instead of souly focusing on historical data.
The Flanker is supposed to out rate the F-15 and the F-16C starting at 800km/h Yet it loses to the F-15 by almost 2x worse then should be expected. No Nation has modern Fighters that are as Poorly implemented and nerfed as the Flanker.
The Changes made with the F-16A G limiter and the F-15s Sheer scuffed FM over performing, gives them above average rate abilities then what the charts suggests. Yet Gaijin is scared to death on fixing the Flanker.
You said the gripen is the best dogfighter in game? The f16A beats it in every regard. @@squishface80085
в этой игре су 27 это тюремная загадка про стулья
Even if they don't give the flanker a 1 to 1 accurate flight model, it's still somewhat similar to the real thing by the looks of it, I'm working on something about the gripen it does still need a nerf, I found some evidence but it's not full proof.
If you can find more evidence make a video, essentially my theory is the Gripens energy retention is higher than what it should by a small amount, not as bad as the m2k's and sustained turn rate is higher by 2 to 3 degrees than what it does now.
I agree the gripen probably needs another nerf, but what would need a nerf? You mentioned the mirage 2k? What did you mean?
I have the M2K but I've never dueled too extensively in SIM.
How busted is it actually?
@jaek__ can be pretty aggressive and pesky to deal with, but in a sustained turn rate fight or energy advantage it can be easily beat, the only challenge is how aggressive it can be for the first few turns.
Gripen does the same just way better atm and sometimes either out rates or just sits behind the enemy.
@anthonyrivera1727 I mentioned the m2k because the gripen needs a nerf in its energy retention, but it won't be ad bad as the m2k's, because irl the gripen did have some good energy retention, better the m2k's its why I brought the m2k up
@@WOLFER.
I would not characterize the Mirage 2000 as being "easily beat" in a rate fight. Pretty much anything that isn't a Block 10 F-16 or a Gripen is going to struggle against it.
That is doubly true because of how Magic 2s work now.
This is some high level brain storm, great job :)
Can I get you beerfund link or something?
avoid cirrhosis
@@kingghidorah8106 I only do onlyfans
so early its still in 360p
Back to back posts? Get a life or dool me
Also, not sure if you'll see this comment, but if you do you should take a look at the J-35. None of them have been able to cobra since their FM change a year ago. Like, nowhere near the 90+ degrees AOA you can see in IRL footage, they max at 60 degrees AOA in game. I reported it but I'm shit at reports so it didn't really go anywhere.
That’s exactly what I think about it, if they buff the FM it’ll be waaaay too good with current in-game missiles (even with R-73’s that also perform much worse than irl but still good enough to almost break the game)
So I think they won’t do a thing with Su’s FM until 9X’s (and other high off-boresight missiles for all nations) are added
This is what i think; im always a full proponent for completely conforming to irl performance of everything.
That being said, i also agree that completely fixing these high AoA & IRCCM Hobs missiles could potentially shift balance a great deal. The real question is; would it shift the balance equal to or past the level of advantage blue team has had over red within the last two patches? Maybe, im not sold but i could see it potentially happening - the 9m effect and avionics advantage certainly is extremely strong though. Ideally i would like to see them immediately fix the FM's to irl specs and let br be the sole balancing factor. This though would likely require a dive into mig29 bleed rates and oswald efficiency numbers such that it is fixed in the same regard at the same time, otherwise there is potential for a TT gap br wise since flankers would likely go up. However, I would *maybe* be ok with a staged implementation stopping when that level of acceptable practical advantage(if any) is reached - only so long as we had a tangible and official promise that the full realistic performance will 100% come the moment other hob's missiles are added for other nations. This is also assuming that multipathing isnt changed next patch towards realistic levels and we dont get a fox3 capable flanker, as in this case the balance would likely lie somewhere between even to slightly blue leaning, even with a full fm fix - therefore no staged implementation would be needed.
As much as I do want things close to realism, and I want to see the devs actually actually make sure the material they use is correct (which it often isn’t) I feel like there’s a huge issue with them being incredibly lax about what planes they actually apply the rules to. The F-16A is a perfect example in my opinion. Why is it that, it’s apparently ok for that thing to have the fm it currently does while basically everyone knows it’s wrong, while for other planes you have to fight tooth and nail for it to maybe get a form of buff because of what gaijin believes is true.
Either every plane needs to stick to realism, or none of them have to. Having a few that just grossly over/underperform because of such inconsistencies while others have to stick to an fm of which the rules of physics actually apply to just leads to both a balancing nightmare in some cases and an incredibly frustrating relationship with the devs because everything will look like it’s just down to double standards.
Anyways, good vid, really hope you’ll get somewhere because I’ve personally just given up on the bug report system. Good luck my guy
Also amazing work on this video. I wish Gaijin would see this but we know how they operate. Well done GG
Gret job comrade Squish! :)
This is the direction we need to take if we want to achieve something, instead of ranting about biases and so on. Did I see you in an F4F (Wildcat) the other day in sim? Wasn't sure it's you.
I doubt it. I don't think I've played F4F. It might have been F6F.
@@squishface80085Could have been that actually, yes. Just saw "FeetPics" in that match.
It may be useful to compare with DCS, even though the SU-27 model in DCS is one of the low fidelity models their flight models are still much better.
the DCS SU-27 is even more inaccurate.
COOL MANEUVER
yes
So does the MiG-29 flight model have all the same problems as the Su-27?
From the looks of things...yes.
There is someone else working on a bug report for 29...but at a glance it ends up underperforming by about the same margins at low speeds.
The buff would be great tbh. The Flanker is good but in WT everything else just has a busted FM. When i fly the flanker i start off with 25-30 min depending on the map with only 8 AAM. The plane with more than 20 min of fuel is just too heavy. I get it, big ass aircraft but when a f16C block 50 can out nose to nose you at damn near every speed index is obsurd lol.
It is garbage in a 1v1, it's hilariously easy to beat in ANY other gen 4
@@toyotawitha20mm35 100% agree. There’s an open bug report I believe on its radius speed and energy retention.
Hey SquishFace, I love your style of videos
Nice video, we needed this topic brought up for a while
Honestly as a US main i think that the su 27 is in an ok spot because i feel that when im in sim and i have to BVR a su27 it kinda just beats me every time either because it has better missiles or my aim 7 just flops for no reason but I see that the su27 has a good turn performance (at least from what i see) I fly the F15 and don't know how the block50 does against it but i think Gaijin atp should give the US Aim 120's(not rn but for later aircrafts) and an hmd for 15 or just make the aim7 a bit better and then just give the su27 and mig 29 the better flight model. I feel that it would make SIM a lot more interesting and make the 2 aircraft better in their own respective ways. And also extra opinion but i think Gaijin should give the F15a its actual radar it had in real life and buff the wing g overload cuz i swear those wings just snap like twigs.
I have never ripped wings in the F-15 while playing Sim. It rips more often in RB because of the way instructor does rudder input to my knowledge.
The easiest way to beat any radar missile in sim is just flying low. Anyone that is trying to do realistic BVR in Sim is usually just baiting themselves to get slammed by radar missiles launched from the bottom. This becomes especially true if the lobby becomes populated because it's just like RB where there are too many missiles coming from multiple directions to realistically notch everything.
If you are losing to an SU-27 in a dogfight, even if it has r73s... I have to say it dude but you suck at dueling. I never, NEVER lose to flankers in the F-15 or F-16 (but I also dogfight in air rb) but I've never had any issues with beating flankers even on Sim.
@@toyotawitha20mm35 honestly I'm not gonna deny that i might be trash but like ima f15 main so when flankers are able to use the R73 with hmd your kinda at a disadvantage, and the fact they get r27er and et's, those missiles are just better than what the us gets.
A big issue I have is that the AoA of the mig's is criminally underreprezented, especially the mig 21 BIS
I think AoA on the MiG-21 is fine...especially with the blown flaps. Low fuel MiG-21 Bis is a pretty damn competent plane in sim.
@@squishface80085 I agree that it's good, just when some sources say that at mid to high fuel it should be pulling at least 10% more, and at low fuel and around 700kph it should have an AoA on the level of the mig 29
@@hanscooks3027I honestly think the more AOA the MiG 21 pulls, the worse it’ll be. It’ll lose way too much speed
@@christopherchartier3017 actually in the game it keeps its speed exceptionally well in high AoA turns (compared to MiG-29’s and Su-27)
@@СергейНикольский-я2цNo I know that, but it’ll get worse with more AoA
I always use the damping mode in SU27 when I have to dogfight, I find it much better, so yes it restricts its aoa a bit but it loses less speed and it remains very maneuverable.
In the thai exercise the J-11As only had r-73 and r-77. The gripens had aim-9M and amraam
What is the source on that?
Because everything I've been able to find has said the Thai Gripens use Aim-9Ls and didn't really provide any indication of what the J-11s used for their IR missiles.
A lot of really crap defense journalism websites picked up on the story and reposted it when I think the actual facts are from a presentation that a PLA pilot provided at a Chinese university.
In such an exercise, they obviously wouldn't *actually* fire their missiles at each other, they probably counted it as scoring a point when the missile got a lock and could be fired with some probability of it hitting. So the actual tracking of the missiles is irrelevant beyond able to lock on to a target. With the amraam, that would only mean a radar target being tracked by the plane. But I'm just guessing here. That the gripen dominates in BVR isn't surprising.
@@squishface80085 From what I've seen, thailand don't use the Aim9L, and it is more likely that it is either an Aim9Li or an Aim9M.
PL8 i think...
@@squishface80085I have seen the pic from their weapons brief before the fight. I’m happy to send it over. It was 9L/M vs R-73, which handily favors the TVC missile in a dogfight. Without the R-73 I would have after the Gripen would win far more.
F-14 can't go above Mach 2.1 in a straight line
That has exactly what to do with Su-27?
@@squishface80085 Every plane has some random ass shortcoming that it shouldn't have, and no one knows why Gaijin does this.
What is the F-14A Early supposed to be capable of according to it's manual?
Generally speaking...anything Mach 2 and above is a speed taken at very high altitude and it isn't extremely relevant in the way that War Thunder plays out.
I think that the nerf/inaccuracy of the Su-27 flight model is a lot more relevant in the way that the game currently plays.
@@squishface80085 I'm gonna be quite honest, I don't know. Many sources state Mach 2.3 at optimal altitude however despite many attempts to look trough the F-14's manuals I could not find proper information on the acceleration and top speed of the aircraft.
That being said, there are instructions for maneuvering under *combat load,* these statistics go up to Mach 2.2
squish?
Yes?
The mig 21 cant even pull its historical aoa
You do not want it to
or you can simply try not to pull more aoa than you need and shoot an r73, honestly the su27 is not bad, it can perfectly beat everything it's not a gripen , f16a,above all else, you still have the opportunity. the one that worries me are the mig29 that is falling in pieces currently it only beats the mig23 and inferior aircraft
The Su-27 absolutely falls to pieces in a dogfight against F-16A, F-16C, F-15A, and Mirage 2000...even if you factor in the R-73.
I can point you in the direction of at least half a dozen players that will beat your Su-27 80+% of the time in a dogfight.
@@squishface80085 Come on, that is simply exaggerating, you should go with the 6 27er plus the 4 R73 and 40m of fuel and the enemy without missiles and 10m of fuel for that to happen, I would believe that about the mig29 but the su27 It works great for me in sim and in realists, but this makes me think that what you call dogfight is reduced to ratefight-turnfight
@@davidborrazvelazquez8407
It's not an exaggeration. Once someone knows how to fly around the R-73 HMD aspect and pre-flare...it just comes down to who can gets guns on first...and all of the planes I have mentioned will get there first.
This is something a lot of people in my server have practiced pretty regularly ever since the Flanker came out.
It works great in Sim EC because the average player in an F-15 or F-16 is clueless.
@@davidborrazvelazquez8407 that works for you well for the same reason as for anyone else in any plane in SB lobbies - most players don’t know that they can drop fuel tanks, don’t know that they can drop heavy af radar missiles, don’t know that they can pre-flare, use flaps, keep their speed, be above the Flanker etc etc. Once you face a worthy opponent in literally any non-Soviet plane who knows what he’s doing - you’re done period.
It can’t win even against block40 barak II(the worst F-16 in the game). And once you’re out of missiles your opponent will be able to play with you as long as he wants like cats play with their food cause due to speed bleed the Flanker can’t even neutralise the fight without becoming a stationary target
Exactly, people who say this absolutely suck at dueling. I have no idea how they are losing to the su 27 or winning in it (going against retarded pilots) @@squishface80085
The HUD footage is completely useless. You don't know the aircraft, you don't know the loadout. You don't even know if they've been removing hardware (as is common in former Soviet air forces especially during non-combat or airshow situations). The final study is also useless. Models of that size are well known to change results substantially to the point of very weird wing profiles and planforms becoming optimum. It really doesn't give anything useful. The study on Oswald efficiency also doesn't seem great as the Oswald efficiency will vary very significantly based on flight profiles. It isn't a static number as the page seems to imply.
What is useful is the manual. That clearly shows what we should be expecting of the aircraft giving the very specific situation and very accurate data. The data clearly didn't match. So something is wrong. My guess is that the game treats Oswald efficiency as a constant figure when in reality it varies substantially. If they used a higher efficiency for low speeds they would get something ridiculous at high speeds. So they're left making the aircraft semi-accurate where you'd expect a lower efficiency but obviously it underperforms where the efficiency should be higher. In other words the flight model is wrong, though it's completely understandable given it was designed for semi-accurate simulation of WW2 fighters only and not supersonic low aspect ratio high AoA modern jets.
Even so it likely just needs to remain gimped. The real world flaws of the Su-27 won't come across well in game. It has incredible missiles. It has great nose authority. That gives it great instant lethality in a way which isn't fun to play against if you don't have the same rapid kill capacity. But then it's avionics are terrible, it's swichology is terrible, the radar and other systems are inconsistent, everything is hard to read and understand, the incoming information is terrible. None of that matters, avionics aren't modelled remotely well enough, swichology doesn't exit in the game, radar doesn't generate faults and doesn't have errors, everything is read through the game's own HUD, things like the RWR and radar have their own in-game version miles above the Su-27's barely functional system. The aircraft was designed in the real world to require constant GCI management, that doesn't mesh with an arcade game like War Thunder. So it's just never going to be an accurate sim for the plane. For many modern planes as none of them can be modelled properly, actually.
What hardware would they remove while keeping the airplane in flying condition? This is obviously not an airshow demonstration so it is not likely that the plane has had any of it's avionics removed or had the fuel load completely minimized to save weight. You can see in the original video that R-27P is shown in the HUD selection which implies that the plane is carrying at least some quantity of missiles.
The testing that I did was with 2 R-73 and 2 R-27ERs and minimum fuel. This heavily weights the test in favor of the War Thunder flight model unless you believe that the VKS trains with what amounts to vapors in their fuel tank.
The data that is in the manual or at least the data that is present on the page does not give specifics into speed bleed for high turn rates. We do know that the plane is underperforming by probably a degree or two per second at low speeds but this also has follow on implications for bleed rates IMO.
Currently the Su-27 having a mediocre radar and bad RWR is already modeled in Sim. It's one of the big complaints that everyone else has about the plane in comparison to Western fighters. And the IRST is rendered nearly useless outside of ACM mode due to the way that Gaijin made the interface.
@@squishface80085 There's still a fair amount which can be removed. The most common is radar and cooling systems. Even using a radar whilst we can clearly see it was there and tracking we don't know precisely which was used and there's a pretty substantial variety which could be used and a pretty large amount of supporting hardware which may or may not be there. That's particularly relevant given the incredibly rare R-27P you noted as it requires substantially less hardware to fire. I'm assuming that's a radar track at least as I'm not familiar with R-27P specific HUD cues and the missile's sensor certainly would be capable in producing the data displayed. Along with that there's a lot of supporting sensors, IRST, RWR, jammer supporting hardware which is regularly removed. The jammers were commonly not used at all so that's often removed as it allows for less maintenance.
The aircraft in flight shows are almost always taken from the combat line and prepared by an extremely substantial removal of hardware so there's a chance that's the case. It's unlikely they're keeping the reduction in redundancy like fewer fuel pumps and removal of some hydraulic supporting systems as that's a legitimate safety risk, but it's still on the table given that was also the type of thing done for some airshow performances. Ultimately we don't know anything about this video other than it's existence so trying to pull meaningful data does anything but hinder your argument. I think you misunderstand my point. I've agreed that the War Thunder data is faulty. I've agreed that the aircraft is underperforming. My point is that we can't conclude anything from a video we have absolutely no details on, and we can't create meaningful information from studies which have no useful information.
The manual data gives everything we need to calculate speed bleed. It's a rudimentary calculation. We have L/D, we have zero lift, we have sustained turn rate all in that same graph. That's everything we need to calculate bleed rates. If we get more data (like engine thrust vs velocity and altitude) we can do better, but we can already get the real aircraft within about 5% accuracy. As you correctly deduce the low speed performance is heavily tied to bleed rate, and actually is often used as a substitute for explaining high g bleed rate in many cases. So the low speed being so inferior here strongly suggests bleed rates will be worse than the real aircraft.
Typically 10% is the level of significance in air combat so if the aircraft is underperforming by 10-18% it's already a decent problem. But at least from your presentation it seems like that might be quite substantially more than that. Though interestingly from the testing I personally did some years ago it seems to be performing better than the DCS Flanker so a decent argument could be made for War Thunder, though I'd strongly suggest the DCS Flanker doesn't have the same engine errors and simply underperforms as many aircraft seem to.
The IRST being useless is pretty accurate. Nose to nose the original IRST had ranges well inside WVR. Tail on it was a lot better as expected, perhaps about 25km at altitude from memory? But from the War Thunder gameplay I've seen the radar is still outperforming it's real world counterpart. It was very rudimentary and relied a lot on analogue computing. But in War Thunder you obviously wouldn't expect a good simulation of electronic warfare, of coarse doppler binning, or of poor internal gain control to name but a few of the many problems. Either it's generically bad or it's generically good, not the brute force power and very rudimentary tech of the real thing. The RWR was borderline useless, only telling you "some type of unknown aircraft in roughly this direction" for one target. Then every other threat was lit up the same so you'd know there were some SAMs, some aircraft, a spread of directions, but not know which was which. Incredibly hard to understand and only really useful when you're already being fired at, and barely useful at that. The entire aircraft was as hostile to its own pilot as possible and near-impossible to comprehend. Simple tasks became monumental challenges, constant switches everywhere. So much the sim really can't do, you're never going to need to flick 5 switches mid dogfight. It's genuinely impressive people could deal with it before the avionics updates came to fix it all.
R-27P is just the HUD nomenclature for the R-27R. There is no indication in the video that any equipment was removed from the plane or that the plane would be significantly lighter than the one that we have in War Thunder.
I have seen no evidence that removing major hardware systems...i.e the radar...is common practice in VKS training. Furthermore you can see that the radar is being jammed at the beginning of the original video...which means the plane has a radar...and the plane that it is engaging likely has a radar jammer.
We can't generate specific data from the original video because there are too many unknown factors; i.e what the fuel load is and what modernization is present in the video. But I also think that it is reasonable to conclude that the footage we are seeing is between two planes in some form of combat configuration; i.e that they are not stripped out airshow airframes.
As far as making a direct comparison to DCS...I have already considered this approach and I don't think it is all that useful because. The EM diagrams that I have seen generated from DCS do not correspond to their real life counterparts in meaningful way...especially where ITR and bleed rate is concerned.
But for the sake of the argument...the last that I checked...the DCS Su-27 EM diagram at sea level shows a bleed rate of around -1200ft/sec for a 30 degree per second ITR. The War Thunder Su-27 experiences -2052ft/sec at the same data-point...at least that is according to the flight model testing program a friend has made. I haven't verified it for myself.
I am not really going to go down the whole rabbit hole of how War Thunder simulates in-cockpit systems because that is just a big can of worms. Essentially my opinion is that all systems in the game are extremely under-modeled as far as the user-interface is concerned.
@@squishface80085 My point isn't that it was likely the equipment was removed, my point is that we can't be certain what equipment was removed, what upgrades it had, what changes had taken place. That makes it completely useless as a point of reference - what would it be a reference for if we don't know what it is? The fact that it happens at all with any slight regularity in the USSR Su-27 fleet means it's usefulness is marginal at best. Especially when we have the very best evidence possible already in the form of the airplane's manual, and as I said it allows a pretty good estimation of the full chart with power deficit and power surplus with an actual known configuration. It's not just it's use as the absolute best possible evidence for P0 which can be read easily. Even if we had the aircraft's configuration for the HUD video it would be far less accurate than calculating the same power deficit from the chart anyway (along with giving a lot less data points) so I'm really not sure why you would be so focused on trying to take the HUD data at all.
The comparison to DCS is more an interesting point than a useful answer. You stated your goal was to fly an airplane close to sim. My point was the DCS data was just as wrong as the War Thunder data (both clearly wrong) but the airplanes are still able to feel fairly accurate and have the tactically meaningful differences accurate to the real world allowing for useful DACT. The data is arguably less accurate than War Thunder on paper but it's still considered by far the best hardcore flight sim yet. So whilst it would absolutely be better for War Thunder to make accurate data, DCS has shown that the planes can still feel good and fly "right" despite being wrong on paper. Here the issue seems to me to be the War Thunder flight model which you correctly noted is just a bit of a mess.
That said if we assume your figures from DCS are correct then it's likely not as bad as my testing some years ago. It's possible they changed flight model, it's possible we're just using different configurations. My testing was primarily at 25k and 15k feet as those are pretty common in DCS. However I have seen a number of ex-military pilots complain that the aircraft they flew in service (F-18, F-14, F-16) all lost airspeed far too quickly and felt clean as if they were fully loaded down with tanks and heavy weapons. Again some of that was a few years ago when I was still able to play properly but at the time at least almost all of the aircraft in the game were far below where they should have been but the aircraft flew and fought well. Even if that has changed today the point remains, WT would likely do better trying to improve the abysmal balance and improve the ancient flight model than prioritising data sheet performance. It's very likely that if they matched the Su-27 to it's datasheet at low to mid subsonic speeds would become horribly overpowered at high subsonic through to supersonic simply because the flight model seems far too dated to handle supersonic jet aero.
As for the avionics and switchology, don't get me wrong I'm not advocating for it to change. Most War Thunder players don't want DCS or they would be playing DCS (and DCS lacks a lot in terms of EW/avionics simulation anyway). WT has become popular by being effectively an arcade game with decent flight physics able to handle the fun part of dogfighting. It's why I advocate for the game so much as a learning tool. They should improve what they're doing well - a PvP game allowing for a simulation of complex air to air scenarios and emergent realistic tasks. Adding switchology and avionics would only serve to scare most players away, unsurprisingly they don't want to be reading an 800 page manual for each aircraft.
My point was that the Su-27 on paper should be an absolute monster, completely overpowered. Everything the game simulates the aircraft does well. So they're obviously in a difficult position where the aircraft's flaws don't exist as a game mechanic and they obviously can't add those mechanics to the game. R-73, best in class instantaneous turn in a game which prioritises instantaneous turn more than the real world. Tons of missiles, R-27T to boot, then just about every other metric it can at least hold its own. I'm not saying I personally think it should be unfairly nerfed but it's certainly understandable if that becomes the route they plan to take given how ridiculous it would feel for the dated baseline Su-27 to be dominating 4+ gen fighters.
Sorry..typing on my phone so I cannot address all of the points as in depth as you might want.
As far as the HUD footage goes...I would be inclined to agree with you if the margins were not nearly as large. If I was trying to use the footage to show that the bleed rate was 5-15% different (these are just numbers...not calculations) then I would be inclined to agree with your sentiment.
Even then...I am very up front in the video that there are things we cannot deduce in the HUD footage alone...i.e the modernization level of the plane.
At the same time...to seed the claim that the bleed rate difference in game vs observed might be explained by the plane in the video is some stripped out Su-27 seems rather ridiculous. It's like saying that a Porsche 911 will cut its Nurburgring time by half by removing the air conditioning.
As far as the DCS comparison goes...the EM diagrams that we can source that are applicable to real life vs the DCS versions...the bleed rates in DCS are higher than real life...at least when it comes to the diagrams I have looked at. For example the F-16C bleed rates are significantly higher than the publicly available diagram. This might actually be fine in DCS if all flight performance metrics are skewed in the same direction...i.e the F-16 bleeds 50% more speed than IRL...but also the MiG-29 and F-18 do as well... because at the end of the day the match up should play out similarly to real life...even if the actual time and physics of getting there is wrong.
The problem is that War Thunder kind of throws that out of the window from what I can tell. The F-16A has the ability to pull 45 AoA. The Su-27 falls out of the sky and loses a pure 1 circle fight to the F-15. The MiG-23 MLA is the best sustained rate fighter in the Soviet tech tree. The Gripen has a bleed rate of 1/2 that of any comparable fighters...in game or in real life.