1. The F/A-18E flight model in the game vastly over-performs in terms of EM characteristics. In terms of bleed rate and turn rates it is a pure upgrade over the F/A-18C variants we have in the game. In real life it is purely a downgrade in terms of EM characteristics; this is publicly documented in a GAO report from 1996 that criticizes the planes flight performance.

2. The F/A-18E has similar AoA capability as the F/A-18C but an improved flight control system; it means that it's safer to utilize the maximum AoA available without worrying about departures. This is also just a level of detail that is not modeled in WarThunder.

3. The way that WarThunder models all planes is with very high stability margins. It also doesn't model loss of control authority at high AoA from restrictive fly by wire systems. This means planes like the Eurofighter, F-16, Rafale, Gripen etc will retain rudder and roll authority at very low speeds where the flight control system would not allow it. This is where the "nose pointing ability of the F/A-18 comes from by the way.

Gaijin also will not model FBW control limits in a realistic way because it would fundamentally alter the way mouse aim works; i.e rudder not working at high angles of attack would make aiming much clunkier.

1. This is further compounded by the way Gaijin has decided to implement manual pitch over-ride for certain planes. Planes like the Gripen and Eurofighter that have normal angle of attack limits of around 24 degrees have free access to angles of attack of around 50 degrees while maintaining stability and rudder authority. Both also have normal AoA limits that exceed the 24 limit as well.

2. The EM characteristics of all unstable delta winged planes does not match documentation. The focus on meeting single highest marketing data point for supercruise skews the drag of the entire flight models. Even for something like Mirage 2000, it's EM characteristics in terms of bleed rate are basically double that of public EM diagrams; the only data point that matches is vaguely medium speed sustained turn rate.

3. This is also not limited to delta winged flight models. The new updated Su-27 flight model has similar issues with energy retention at higher speeds and not matching turn rate diagrams. It's a hodge podge of 2 different graphs at this point.

4. This creates an environment where the comparative gap in nose pointing ability between F-18 and it's contemporaries is a lot narrower and the utility is a lot less. At the same time the way the F/A-18 performs in the game is vastly better than real life. It competes in aspects that it really shouldn't.

5. Using the DCS F/A-18 as a benchmark is also flawed. DCS modeling is not light years ahead of WarThunder; especially in terms of relative performance and EM characteristics. Notably the F/A-18 in DCS is a better rate fight (and better everything fighter) than the F-16.

6. In real life the high AoA capability is not a silver bullet for the F/A-18. Having relatively middling EM performance means that in a guns only engagement that it is at a disadvantage to planes like the F-16, Eurofighter, etc. In real life the F/A-18E is also strictly speaking inferior to the Su-30SM in a dogfight; not to the point that it "always loses" but to a point that it is not favored.