I want to pay attention to double standarts when it comes to how developers model FMs of certain aircraft, specifically Japanese F-2A and Soviet MiG-29M. I’ll attach examples and numbers to make it clear.
- F-2A in game on min fuel (30%) is 2100kg heavier than the F-16A which is equal to be 24% heavier and its engine produces 27% more static thrust. Wing area of the F-2A is 25% bigger than that of the F-16A
- MiG-29M in game on min fuel is 1437.1kg heavier than the MiG-29A 9-12 which is equal to be 12% heavier and its engines produce 17% more static thrust. Wing area of the MiG-29M is 10.5% bigger than that of the MiG-29A 9-12 (cause of enlarged ailerons that also apparently fixed issue with reverse roll at high angles of attack but that’s questionable and might be a later modification for the 29M-2).
Now look at the perfomace diffirence between F-2AvsF-16A:
As you can see F-2A performs significantly better than the F-16A
Meanwhile 29M vs 29A:
MiG-29M performs almost the same as the MiG-29SMT (even has worse energy retention than the SMT at 800-1100kph range of speeds) and incomparebly worse than the MiG-29A 9-12.
Now about drag polars. MiG-29M is known for being specifically designed to minimize drag and to do so they welded most of the parts of its fuselage to get rid of rivets
Here’re photos of MiG-29A and MiG-29M 9-15 for comparison:
As you can see MiG-29M doesnt have visible rivets and 9-12 is fully covered with them.
Meanwhile in WT both 29M and 29A have completelyidentical drag profiles for fuselage, vertical and horizontal stabilizers
and only wing drag profiles differ:
And finally about lift polars. Situation is the same as for drag polars. 29M and 29A have identical lift polars for fuselage, vertical and horizontal stabilizers and only differ for wing. Now again, they got rid of rivets on the 29M which made air flow over all control surfaces, fuselage and wing more stable which should reflect in increase of lift coefficient and critical angle of attack neither of those is present in WT besides for the wing.
Ура я попал на секретные документы.
А вообще, товарищ промахнулся форумом, а то и на багтрекер надо идти.
С другой стороны...
Да, я планировал это сделать на .com (пришлось дублировать), тк на en форуме нарорду поболее, поэтому и вероятность, что разработчит обратит внимание на проблему выше, но меня автоматом перекинуло сюда, поэтому так вышло. И да, это не получится никак исправить через систему баг репортов, тк разработчик не предоставляет данные о технике пользователям, а датамайны (а статшарк именно их использует) запрещены к использованию в баг репортах. Ну и как вы верно заметили, статшарк сам прямо говорит об этом.
Ну так и писать надо было на русском тогда). Тему-то закроют, как кто-то из модеров проснётся.
