Beer Thunder: War Thunders Implementation Of Fly By Wire Systems And It's Consequences.

[@cameroncarley7958]

I know you said you rambled a lot but this was, in my opinion, a very well put together (as put together as a drunken no script video can be) and explained video. I didn’t expect to watch the full hour, but your ability to break these topics down made it a very interesting and informative watch. Thanks dawg

[@squishface80085]

Oh this one had beer but it also had a script. I would not be able to get through this video in an hour without one.

[@thegenericguy8309]

in Soviet service the MiG-29 did not operate the R-27ER, in spite of compatibility, owing to doctrine. might've changed if the war went hot but the MiG-29's 'primary weapon' was R-73, just as F-16's was AIM-9, with R-27R/Ts giving it a secondary-but-competent BVR capability. they didn't see a point to procuring a heavier and more expensive version of the missile for a regime that the MiG-29 was supposed to merely be competent at, especially as MiG-29 already had range and time-on-station issues. so while the modular nature of the R-27 family permits the MiG-29 to use any version of it without problems, historically, R-27Es are not a weapon system for MiG-29 until after the end of the cold war.

[@RogueBeatsARG]

IMO the idea of deleting the FBW limitations were bad, if i wanted to play a Jet game where the F16 can pull 20Gs id play Ace Combat 7. and its not an insult to AC7 game is great. But WT (at least Realsitic and SIM) are supposed to have realistic flight models, that includes flight by wire limitations, structural stress damage and all.

[@squishface80085]

I hope the fact that only some approximation of fly by wire limitations are implemented in the game was clear in the video. It's not that they were deleted...it's that their approximation is not consistent across the board...and the lack of at least some of the limitations are especially detrimental for sim gameplay.

[@chimpy5598]

He buggin he must not know that I'm thuggin

[@zehi04]

shit boutta get tragic, new patek, hop in the v and it's sure automatic

[@schonka2]

man, I have learned so much in this video, thanks for making it

[@M0LOCK]

1:39 its just me or the R73 kept missing even without flares?

[@skilz2kil528]

thats just normal r73 behaviour - its entirely bipolar and a coin flip if it decides to cooperate and fly properly towards the target

[@M0LOCK]

@skilz2kil528 I know its bad but i asked because lately is happening a lot and i tought it was me being crazy

[@NewRSM1994]

@@M0LOCK Blue is favored in the latest patch, it will swing again in the next for the red (i imagine a buff for AA or something of that sort)

[@daber6948]

@@skilz2kil528 I think its when you launch with g-overload. It can't regain stability and just do that oscilations

[@AbhiChandra-ho6io]

@@M0LOCK I think something similar happened with the MICA-EM on the dev server. For some reason, Thrust vectoring seems to struggle and spin out and do back and forth motions when the servers are struggling, as they are now. On the dev server where there is less load, the MICAs were deadly.

[@bramtheyugo]

I think that probably the best fix for the issues is let these planes have gaijins essentially made up stats in rb as they say they cant make it work correctly in rb and then have an fcs in sim on damping mode which is almost like a 1.5x system to make planes have their maximum abilities and allow people to not have to use manual control

[@a_catfish5180]

Hey man I’m kinda new to sim, I know how it works I just ain’t the best at it yet. what setup and controls do you use? You got a video on it? I have a setup I like on my vkb but it’s always nice to draw inspiration 8:02 REDFOR player number moment

[@hunterparke9059]

Love the instructor voice

[@j.r.linden9679]

Hey best War Thunder video ive ever seen. Just to make sure i understand your main point, 4th gen FBW jets in game dont just have AOA limits that are too high, but also are way more controllable then they should be in the deep stalls they are able to produce because of it. Right?

[@albatross8868]

"my brain hurts man" same

[@thegenericguy8309]

36:00 the viability of flying right above enemy AFs is why we should get tiered area air defenses in sim smh wheres the I-HAWK and SA-4 batteries this is totally not because I am desperate for SEAD gameplay its definitely for balans trust

[@kendesimon4177]

One thing you mentioned , they could seperate the values from sim and realistic battes. But ill doubt it will happen , the servers are already kinda suffering.

[@raketny_hvost]

selective realism is literally condition where most games exist. you just need to implement it properly. oke, let's imagine i'm Vasya ol' Soviet boomer, i just like plaens and not care about which numbers did another boomer write into manuals. F-16 has abysmal ammo capacity (hello you clown which increased team number in ARB), and i can admit that. but then i look at Mig-29smt and a question arises. and it's VERY important for ARB since you can't always run and do frags just passing by (with exceptions), you have to defend yourself sometimes. plus, maneuvering is obviously more fun. sadly, Gajub don't look at gameplay means as well. they don't look at tournaments as well. and only way to make them WORK (just like with some Russian politicians) is to bonk them constantly with massive complaints before it annoys them enough 36:32 lmofdslflgsodfposlsfofsofhsfhsdfsfhhhd

[@sakyuz6080]

why is everybody talking about fbw? did war thunder announce something about fbw?

[@squishface80085]

@@sakyuz6080 I don't know why anyone else is talking about it. I'm taking about it because I find the subject interesting and it does have some implications for sim gameplay.

[@jansatamme6521]

looking as for american equipment you went by the introduction date (which is here and there), then for the mig-29 it would be 1983, r-27e would be 1990, r-73 would be 1984 (mig-29 was designed with the r-73 in mind and shouldnt even get r-60m in game, while it is the r-27er the -12 and -13 shouldnt get)

[@thegenericguy8309]

R-27E was introduced long before 1990. it was in wide operational service alongside the Su-27 from '85 onwards. the USSR didn't declare something as "in service" until the manufacturer had met all its obligations to deliver a working product in order to put pressure on them to get their shit together, and the Su-27 didn't meet its requirements (primarily for the radar's service intervals) until 1990. as Su-27 was the only user of R-27E in Soviet service, R-27E "entered service" alongside the Su-27 for the same reason. MiG-29 did operate R-60s, primarily in training but also in some patrol configurations (2x27, 2x73, 2x60M) for drag reduction.

[@jansatamme6521]

@@thegenericguy8309 for the american equipment he used the intorduction dates so he should state the russian ones as those as well, because the mig-29 entered service after the f-16 because it was literally made as a counter to that and to clear up the period where the mig-29 carried r-60ms instead of r-73, which was at best 1 year but practically not at all

[@thegenericguy8309]

@@jansatamme6521 it should get R-60Ms because it could and did use them IRL. it shouldn't get them 'instead' of R-73s but it should still be allowed to carry them

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

@@thegenericguy8309 9.12B could use those, not 9.12 or 9.12A

[@ForwardKinematics]

Great flying, I definitely loved flying this way prior to the angle gating update. But, defeating Fox-3s was too easy and now it's more realistic to how it works. To your point of AOA limiters and Gaijin not adding these things because mouse aim, it is unfortunate, and I think it'll stay that way because of the fact that the player base is largely on mouse and keyboard, playing RB and AB for example. I'd love it if they instead added it into SB for the sake of SB, this problem however is substantial considering it's requiring them to consider balancing these higher tier aircraft around this in ways that are unrealistic for example. Hope something changes and AOA limiters get addressed, it's unlikely however.

[@benbased7740]

Came to see squish video returned from university lecture🤓

[@kizvy]

Chat is this real

[@gabrielneves6602]

"unfortunatelly, pilots have been exceptionally successfull in discovering new combinations of airspeed and maneuvers that will result in loss of controls with sometimes irreversible consequences." what th fuck was happening in israel?

[@squishface80085]

I think this is something that was true for all of the early F-16s. The initial fly by wire system was analog and was later changed to digital. Exactly what that entails and what that actually means...I can't comfortably explain in detail because I haven't fully wrapped by head around it.

[@ВячеславФролов-д7я]

Coming from the DCS, the difference between 3rd and 4th gen is clearly seen there: 1. While flying in a fox1-capable 3rd gen, like the mirage f1 or an f4e, you aren't sure that you'll have your fox1 shot before the merge at all. And if you carry advanced fox1s, like 530f or aim7f/m, your launch probably won't happen at ideal launch parameters. There are several factors contributing to that: the radar being a fairly weak, being able to pick up the target only a few miles further than your optimal launch range at best, your radar requiring some efforts in positioning to be able to pick your target at all, labor-intensive radar operations and iff (or lack thereof), limited situational awareness. So, in a 3rd gen, you've done your job well if you got a fox1 shot at all, not speaking of doing some proper bvr and fox1 geometry 2. 4th gens have fully capable look-down shoot-down kits, along with some digital processing of radar signals, and more powerful radar sets in general, means that you are pretty sure that your fight will include fox1 bvr phase. Your opponent may utilize some tricks to avoid it, but it's hard, and you are generally counting on a bvr duel. And your systems allow you way more positioning in order to get a tactical advantage in a fox1 slinging contest, you don't babysit the radar, but do what you want to do instead, and rely on your radar to do its work in any situation 3. When dogfighting in a 3rd gen, you are really concerned about your energy. Even a lightly loaded mig21bis, with more than 1 twr can't regain speed in a dogfight easily. Thus, gen3 dogfights are slow-paced, with everbody flying at around their optimal corner speeds and really rarely doing soms high aoa stuff and being extremely cautious at cashing their speeds, because one that looses his speed first usually dies 4. In a gen4 acm, everybody is way more aggressive. Those planes can regain their speeds casually in a dogfight, thus, they allow way more risky moves, deflection shots and missing your shots when you've cashed your speed into them. 5. Also, throttle management comes into play. In a 3rd gen, you generally merge as fast as you can and burn as hot as you can, because your plane will burn any excess speed you have in a moment. Generally speaking, you can't be too fast in a 3rd gen dogfight (there are exceptions of course). 4th gen can and will fly faster than you'd wish it to in a dogfight So, where does the f14 fits here? In terms of bvr and missile slinging, it's definitely in a 4th gen league. The radar is more labor-intensive than a typical 4th gen radar, but you have a special guy in the back to work as a radar computer, and your radar has the same level of capabilities as a typical 4th gen radar. In terms of maneuverability, it controls like a 3rd gen, but with capabilities of a lower-tiered 4th gen

[@TransportSupremo]

What a load of nonsense

[@ДонныйАдмирал]

What's the point of playing sim game when "historically accurate fbw is no fun"? Its not fun for the f-16 player lol, but fun for his opponents :) Gayjin chose money here. Actually there are so many double standarts at top tier, the game is dogshit One thing I didnt hear(maybe Im deaf), is that the contraption of those f-16, EF2 and others can collapse at too high AOA and high speeds, it's not just "stall and fall". And stalling stability is also a big problem because it increases so stupid much. And yes, F-22 MOST OP EVER SUPER MEGA MAGA JET, F YEA Stealth is invisible for cameras just like civilian people in camo in the street are invisible 🐵🐵🐵 36:22 thats dirty

[@Space_Reptile]

A 4.5th gen fighter is still a 4th gen That's what the 4 in 4.5 is for

[@chaosinsurgency6636]

5 -0.5 fighter there

[@Iden_in_the_Rain]

They’re different enough to be their own thing, though. If they’re based on a fourth gen they’re usually heavily modified.

[@InTheMood-fi3bh]

42:57, I hardly know her!

[@lameducky]

50:30 dude in the chat asking for PVE lol

[@mutingp]

Wooolllolololol it’s squishy face

[@TransportSupremo]

Fighter generations is like the astrology of plane nerds

[@jakobwithj565]

19:10 The mitsubishi f2 wasn‘t the first aircraft with AESA Radar in active service it was the MiG 31 starting its service in 1981/1983 (depends on what you want to define as active service like always with soviet aircraft)

[@MobinBrown]

MiG-31 came with a PESA radar.

[@squishface80085]

@jakobwithj565 I did not know that off the top of my head. The timeline I provided is what I could find and what I had typed out in a document. Hopefully the video was clear enough that I don't think the MiG-31 having PESA radar changes the overall context of the discussion. The MiG-31 is more of an interceptor vs a fighter. Or the more correct way to put it is probably that it is doctrinally it's own unique thing in the context of other 3rd/4th generation fighters. MiG-31 was also notable for its use of data link...but I when I started to go down that rabbit hole...you end up into the realm of "what amount of communication and with what is considered data-link?"

[@jakobwithj565]

​@@squishface80085 youre right this topic would be way to much for such a video and this video made me abbo your chanel regardles of this topic and even i mixed up the Aesa and pesa radar

[@squishface80085]

I think PESA would still count as electronically scanned. However the sheer size and space available might be why the MiG-31 was the first to get one.

[@thegenericguy8309]

@@squishface80085 combination of size, space, economics, and requirements. the USSR was suddenly faced with an enormously difficult threat to counter in the form of massed terrain following cruise missiles, mainly Tomahawk, and so they suddenly had a requirement for a radar with unparalleled small RCS lookdown massed multi-target engagement capabilities, and PESA happened to be the best way to accomplish it at the time. if they had to face such a threat a decade earlier this radar wouldn't have been possible and they would've had to go with the F-111B/14's approach of mech scan TWS + active radar homing missiles, but those missiles are both non-recoverable and extremely expensive, so the Soviets saw a lot of value in shifting the high cost to the asset that's expected to come home and land after doing its job, especially as most of said asset's targets aren't expected to be very capable of shooting back and threatening that investment.

[@runakovacs4759]

What I don't understand about the mouse aim response is... The issues presented are about control input adjustments by the aircraft and automatic inputs by the aircraft. If such would brick the mouse aim system - fair - why can't this system be turned off while in mouse aim mode and only enabled in full-real mode. That is if I understood the dev response correctly.

[@squishface80085]

My interpretation is that they deliberately misunderstood the issue in order to not have to acknowledge a niche problem and not waste man hours fixing it. I also think it might due to some initial reports asking for a much more strict modeling of FBW limits than what I was suggesting. Having extra rudder authority and roll authority at low speeds is not nearly as a game breaking issue as everything having super maneuverability.

[@anthonyrivera1727]

I dont think the realism should apply to RB, but should apply to SB

[@colander1585]

Couple of points. First, player has no business playing FBW aircraft out of, what GJ calls, "damping". No idea why is that allowed in the first place...and second, GJ is making up SEP in order to "balance" planes according to their vision of how the world works, which has less and less connections with reality. Supermaneuverability is post-stall maneuverability. In comparison to stable, the unstable aircraft have considerably less induced drag, particularly in supersonic, so simulating this really isn't an issue. As for the Bronk guy, what "turn performance"? Instantaneous sure, sustained, not so much. We had that discussion way back in 2009 when Peter Collins did a payed gig for the Rafale, a move not so smart as it turned out later.

[@squishface80085]

There are a couple of points that I would dispute. 1. Gaijin's SEP modeling is only somewhat accurate when it comes to unstable planes. Usually everyone makes a big fuss over the F-16A overperforming and they have not compared the in-game plane to its EM diagrams. If the latest iteration of Statshark is accurate, the F-16A is underperforming it's EM diagram at speeds above Mach .6 and the way it's SEP lines are shaped past that point are very off. It is also underperforming in SEP at low speeds but by a much smaller margin. However this is just cross referencing Statshark numbers vs EM numbers...and while Statshark is mostly accurate...it's also not a claim I would want to make without doing a bunch of testing myself. The Mirage 2000 is another plane that is unstable and probably most closely matches it's EM diagram but also has a "bowing" tendency at it's -800 line where the start and end points are roughly correct but everything in between is not bleeding speed correctly. And then at low speed the plane will bleed too much speed. However the STR line from Statshark is practically identical to the EM diagram. Lastly if we look at the Su-27, we can assume that it is under performing in terms of specific excess power. This is because Gaijin has decided that the sustained turn rate chart that is in the publicly available manual is for a plane that weighs 18,900kg and not for one that weighs 20,000kg which is specified in the manual. It is also easy to see this just based on things like HUD footage (which was recently used to justify increasing the Rafales turn rate...so that is another avenue I will be re-visting) and airshow footage. 2. The Bronk article is available on Hush-Kit. He compares both instantaneous turn performance and sustained turn performance. His claim is that the Rafale has advantages in instantaneous turn, sustained turn, and lower bleed rates at altitudes below 15,000 feet. However the Eurofighter has advantages in gain rate. Above 15,000 feet the Eurofighter is superior. When I had made the original recording of this video...the Eurofighter was better than the Rafale across the board in the game. With the Rafale turn rate buff they should be roughly equal in turn performance, but that might be changing in the future.

[@colander1585]

@@squishface80085 Don't have US jets so no idea about 16A, but 16C Block50 corresponds with Pilot's manual pretty much, except for the ITR which is 8% higher than it should be. This is done simply by increasing Clmax, nothing else. One parameter GJ decided to "buff" because reasons, which has little to no impact on sustained turn. eg. M2000 is an FM monstrosity and I'd remove it from the game, or completely rework it. It's just horrible on pretty much every level. Yeah, about Su27...GJ does what GJ does. Not sure anymore if that's incompetency, or pure malice. Somebody beaten "devs" in elementary school so this is some kinda "geek revenge" or something, but their behavior is beyond comprehension. I'm trying to explain GJ's "developer" in Bug report chapter that he's simply wrong, but it's like talking to a wall and he bans me eventually. :D I mean talking about personal issues... As for this Bronk guy, well, I'm gonna refrain from commenting as I don't think he's combat qualified, but what we can say is that Rafale never demonstarted capabilities Bronk/Dassault claim it can do...not even on flyoffs when, well, one should do that because one is trying to sell the plane and when you're unable to show what you claim you can do, the customer becomes wary. We had that situation in India back in 2012.

[@skilz2kil528]

Agreed, i think a good band aid fix until they ever decide to actually make a proper fcs system would be just limiting everything in sim matches to dampening by default then only if a jet has a design feature in which the pilot can override the normal limits of the system for extra manoeuvrability in combat, then such jets could have access to manual mode.

[@zayf1760]

My guy is a generational Rafale hater. As you've already been told the future Rafale STR buff is based on onboard video that allows for very accurate measurement of turn rates. The only unknown are fuel loads and from what I know, the devs have used a rather low fuel mass to model the aircraft after this video. So ffs please stop crying across the CBR, forums and even YT and make actual reports using actual sources. Edit : also in my experience Statshark overestimates the Rafale STR by quite a bit. I expect it to be the same with the new FM, so it probably won't exceed 22 °/s.

[@raketny_hvost]

@@colander1585 lol i'd probably agree about school revenge, because pretty much of Russian media (where games also belong in my vision) hate every single thing about USSR. but i can't say same about GJ since there are still good Russian tanks and aircraft like T-34, T-80, 21bis, newest Su-27SM, etc. this is just matter of "statfap", when devs have not that much clue about main servers balance

[@kweng5867]

I think putting the F-14 in 4th gen is criminal. It lacks proper multi role capabilities and is severely lacking in its flight performance. It’s slow, overweight, underpowered, carries way too little ordinance, has rudimentary electronics and software and has the maneuverability of a brick when compared to an actual 4th gen fighter like the Typhoon, SU-35 or the F-16. The F-14 is a late third gen aircraft and belongs in the same category as stuff like the panavia tornado.

[@johnpaul-b9h]

What? F-14's maneuverability is awesome, ofc against typhoons and su-35 it'll be worse but every early 4th gen will struggle against those

[@M0LOCK]

If the F14 that has precision guided munitions,advanced avionics(YES for its time they were pretty advanced) and a pretty awesome flight performance is a 3rd gen following your logic the Su27 and Mig29 also are.....

[@raketny_hvost]

F-14 has great flight performance for it's weight and engines

[@ВячеславФролов-д7я]

Just let's look at the systems. F14 has a full look down shoot down kit with some digital processing and an exceptional detection range. It can find and lock an opponent before the merge at basically any situation, except when he's trying really hard to avoid detection. 3rd gens have semi-functional look down radars at best, usually with mti technology and severely limited detection range against low flying fighter sized targets. F14 also has a datalink. Not the best one, but a damn datalink in late70s/80s

[@TransportSupremo]

You just suck kweng