Is the Sabre's engine Nerfed?

I am curious now that I decided to hack a little further into the performance of both of the Korean era ships. I looked at the engine performance figures, the matrices in the .luas and the facts about thrust performance with speed and altitude. But what I found may have been the easiest explanation of the "Sputnik" like performance of the MiG while the Sabre got doggedly slow at low energy. Now yes the climb performance was decidedly better for the thicker winged, higher thrust to weight ratio of the MiG, but this has more to due with weight and wing loading for the most part. Unless I am missing a critical factor of the engine performance of the MiG's Rolls Royce knock off (haha, get my digs in) the engine matrix figures tell a different tale. First glance just now made it seem like the Sabre's engine was nerfed. It may be so in real life due to engine design issues but the raw numbers show a distinct "blip" in the matrices. Check this out,

Sabre first:

table_data =

{ -- M Pmax Pfor

[1 ] = { 0 , 26296 , 26296 },

[2 ] = { 0.2 , 24072 , 24072 },

[3 ] = { 0.3 , 23441 , 23441 },

[4 ] = { 0.4 , 23088 , 23088 },

[5 ] = { 0.5 , 22981 , 22981 },

[6 ] = { 0.55 , 23011 , 23011 },

[7 ] = { 0.6 , 23088 , 23088 },

then MiG:

table_data =

{-- M Pmax Pfor

{ 0.0 , 26000 , 26000 },

{ 0.1 , 26000 , 26000 },

{ 0.2 , 24430 , 24430 },

{ 0.3 , 23040 , 23040 },

{ 0.4 , 22090 , 22090 },

{ 0.5 , 21490 , 21490 },

{ 0.6 , 21310 , 21310 },

{ 0.7 , 21400 , 21400 },

Note the first 2 lines of each. The Sabre drops off at the second line, the MiG holds steady through the second line. When fighting in the vertical near stall, this is critical. It may be true, but for engines that supposedly had similar max thrust potential, this clear difference at low speed seemed a little off. This is independent of weight and wing loading which could still explain the known performance difference. Those in the know please chime in. I'm curious.

You do realize it put out a whopping 5,910 lbs of thrust?

Haha, yes of course. What I found odd was that the MiG-15 didn't really have all that much more if that, and I wanted to understand why the SFM for the MiG had NO difference in thrust output between Mach=0 and Mach =0.1. As I look at the matrix again I see that the grid is different. Sabre skips M=0.1 and goes directly to 0.2, implying the same figure for 0.1 so I guess that's OK at this point. The MiG does have less loss from 0.2 to 0.3 which is the sweet spot I suppose. Also it's lower wing loading and higher trust to weight ratio explains a lot of it's known climbing advantage. So I guess this is a false alarm for a couple reasons. One, the apparent "nerf" is only due to the omitted line and it still covers the same range. Two, SFM is used by AI and not players AFAIK so all of this may be moot. I did cheat the Sabres max trust up nearly 1000 pounds in the list and it seems to have made a difference, albeit totally fake. ;) It is pretty neat to dance and float with the MiGs at zero G over the top. :D

Still good at 2700 kg max thrust. :D And a 100 kg boost at Mach 0.2. ;)

Or, maybe "their German's were better than our German's..." :-)

Are you sure you're not looking at the AI SFM table?

I hope that DCS flight modeling and engine modeling is little more than just a few lines in script for a non-linear performance.

I wanted to understand why the SFM for the MiG had NO difference in thrust output between Mach=0 and Mach =0.1.

(...)

Two, SFM is used by AI and not players AFAIK so all of this may be moot.

"Are you sure you're not looking at the AI SFM table?"

I hope that DCS flight modeling and engine modeling is little more than just a few lines in script for a non-linear performance.

As Squiffy said, only the AI uses the SFM, and E.D. have said they intend to transition them off that...

Ah interesting! And I did note that the matrix for the Sabre skips the Mach 0,1 line, implying it's the same as 0.0 or static thrust. This eliminates the "blip" I thought I saw in the first place, which again makes it moot, just like the fact that's it's AI SFM and not player input modelling.

Changing the line entries in the list within the ~Airplace.lua does have an effect. (Not SFM) You can reduce g specs, active weapon distance, thurst, speed, g tolerance and other cool things. This is where we discovered the problem with the MiG-19 g tolerance being 200% of the natural scale in game. An obvious error that was corrected. Editing some of these figures has resulted in good dog fighting engagements in my practice offline against AI. Expert is still wicked but fights are a bit more fair in the lower levels of AI.

Or, maybe "their German's were better than our German's..." :-)

Haha Javelina :D Their Rolls Royce was better, but in rocketry, "Our Germans were better than their Germans." Love that Von Braun quote. :D

Not applicable online though. There's the integrity check still.

Of course. Still wonder why one has a line missing in the matrix when they were based on each other supposedly.

Just a nice screenshot after the last update. I reloaded my lua edits except for the MiG. :D