Does that mean no more sections?
I haven’t seen anywhere list that the missile is more capable in the short range aspect everything sites it as still a medium to now more effective long range missile. I do wonder if there is some confusion about the high off bore site capability. All that should mean is it is capable of firing at a target while in the notch doesn’t mean it is more maneuverable at short range.
Interestingly, I partnered with someone to see if I could model the R-37M with the same method that Gaijin modeled the R-77 and R-77-1, which you can read more about here:
The R-37M was modeled with the same launch conditions that Gaijin used for R-27ER, R-77, and R-77-1 but the range used was 200km as listed by Robosnoroexport, the same manufacturer source that Gaijin also used to model the range performance for the other missiles.
Testing done shows that the R-37M also achieved 100km in just a little over 90 seconds.
The interesting thing is that the Meteor achieved this same performance while weighing 2.5x lighter than the R-37M (190kg vs 510kg), and thus having flight model benefits.
2 Likes
No surprise, the R-37M has a solid-fuel rocket motor it has to carry both fuel and oxidizer while having either low thrust with long burn or shorter burn time with higher thrust and top speed, so it’s more like a ballistic missile with a very high loft profile (like the AIM-120s too) and, depending on the distance of the target, even leaving the atmosphere if needed.
The Meteor has a ramjet motor (airbreathing rocket engine) and only needs to carry fuel as the oxygen in the atmosphere is used as oxidizer (limits its maximum altitude due to air/oxygen density) and can also throttle its output so has a much longer burn time which also varies with the distance of the target. If the target is at the border of the missiles maximum range it will throttle down and only fly with minimum thrust at maximum efficiency (Mach 2-3) and a higher loft. If the target is inside the NEZ it will go full throttle and fly at around Mach 5 with very little regard to efficiency and most likely zero to little loft only (shortest path to target).
3 Likes
The report of PL12 also needs to be fixed. Its current performance is that of SD10, but its weight is that of SD10A. SD10<SD10A=PL12
1 Like
I’m not hinting at anything, but companies directly related with Russian army forces holds tournaments in WT.
Interestingly beyond 100km, R-37M starts to take over just because of sheer energy retention from the high weight alone, but realistically no one will fire at 100km+ in Warthunder.
I do wonder how they’ll implement all of the necessary guidance logic that ramjets bring, they’re already having issues implementing dual pulse motors if we’re to take BVVDs words at it.
Funny thing: Theoretically the Meteor can disable its engine mid flight (after entering a loft and reaching optimal speed), fly ballistic into the target area and reignite its engine afterwards as the used Borane fuel is pyrophoric and ignites when it gets into contact with air. Only problem is that the air-inlets heighten the drag of the missile during this propulsionless phase.
This would be really fun to model for them :D
And I don’t really get their problem with implementing dual-pulse. The easiest way would be to add a second burn (high thrust, one or two seconds burn duration for example) after the main booster burned out and the target is either inside a certain range (<5 km for example) or the missile calculates that it can’t reach the target without another boost. It’s not that complex in my opinion.
All i wish for in the new Update is a Fix for the Terminator Armor and a BR Raise to 200.0 :)
1 Like
All i wish for is an actual anticheat and not this laughable thing we call battleye
lmao cause yes with the introduction of more ARH they would introduce only 1 modern fox 2 what even is that second comment, if you mean the NG I’m personally not against it but I don’t want to see it until a seeker fix is done to a lot of missiles.
maybe I don’t play ground enough, but is there actually like a cheater problem, even when grinding USA ground and heli’s I heard about it but don’t think I ever faced a single one.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
what lmao, I know this I come from apex, titanfall2, CSGO, rainbow 6 prior to war thunder I know the cheating issue is massive in all games, and I never mentioned that it wasn’t??
Two things here I said “problem” like rampant chronusing or aimbotting i.e Titanfall and Apex second I said I don’t play ground a ton, mainly I play air where there really isn’t any benefit to the regular kinda cheats i.e. wall hacks or global player position info so I don’t play hundreds f matches a week…
And since I don’t run in to aim botters or other clear cheats commonly, I asked a QUESTION, cause the only cheats I’m aware of recently are the infinites SPAA missiles a month ago which was an exploit I think,(could be wrong) and wall hacks but its hard to tell if someone is wall hacking with how weirdly small the maps are, how easy exploitable some maps are, plus the horrid sound system. so Its really hard to know with out looking into player history every match.
I’m gonna assume from your odd response that it is a common issue, if you don’t mind answering normally, what kind of cheats are being used or is it just wallhack type things?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
It is just a UI change from what I can see. The way to sink ships should still be the same.
Yeah Flame found it was better than Fakour 90 in kinematics terms. So I’d imagine other big missiles like R-37M are fairly similar. Interesting on the weight comparison.
4 Likes
The problem is implementing it two different ways: BVR and WVR. Obviously BVR launches will have such missiles activating the second boost phase much later compared to a WVR intercept. They could go the way of modelling it with exact burn times as BVR but the delay to the second boost phase is shorter (e.g. 1-3 s versus however long it takes in BVR (on average, ~30 seconds firing from 40 km)) as obviously the target is closer.
Obviously we don’t know a lot about them now, but we can deduce and attempt a (new) missile propulsion model based on information publicly available, like the overall weight of the missile, fuel weight (an “easy” way would be to halve this and divide them in half between boost phases, but even this brings its own problems like not knowing how much fuel is spent in the initial or second boost phase) and the maximum range of the missile.
(I didn’t notice this reply before as I was working, whoops)
R-37M is hypersonic inertia boi.
But I will be the first to say that I intend to fire at exactly 90 km. I dont even think it’s possible to launch at 100 km in normal matches anyways. Probably only in custom battles with a friend to test missiles from opposite corners of maps.
I do agree that Ramjets/Meteor will, IMO, be by far the most difficult implementation which may require a whole new model for it (and dual-pulse, kind of).
Also, could you please refer me to where he said this? I might’ve missed something somewhere. Just want to confirm for myself. Thanks