Another reason it’s apples to oranges and y’all REALLY aren’t going to convince mythic otherwise. The good thing is, the devs understand where he doesn’t. No need to waste time arguing with one who won’t listen.
1 Like
Just an FYI, if you guys are going to be measuring missile kinetic capability by vertical launch configuration, it is much better to be looking at maximum altitude limitation rather than range.
Range in VL configuration is subject to battery time, possible lofting and efficient energy saving guidance, and etc.
Altitude limit would look at strictly how high it can climb in VL situation, which strips things down to just kinetic energy.
2 Likes
We trust in Stepanovich
1 Like
I don’t, the guy looks at primary and secondary sources stating things about American missiles and says he rather believe what he thinks because he doesn’t think what those sources say is “realistic”. He’s also said some incredibly questionable or downright provably things in other threads regarding radar guidance. The players that do trust him main russian vehicles because his decisions tend to be negative for western vehicles and advantageous for russian ones.
2 Likes
I’m a very patriotic American, I also have a good common sense compass. What Stepanovich says makes sense. We can try to prove him wrong on complex issues like multi patching… but even so, he’s a game dev. He’s not an expert in the field. They make mistakes.
That’s why we must compile sources and bug report honestly. You want to pretend your sources say a lot more than they really do, and you’ve shared quite a lot of questionable information yourself. You stick to it, it doesn’t help your argument here.
Your testing isn’t worth shit because when you tested varying that coefficient in shots, the time to range didn’t change. And you just ignored it when I called out that that result didn’t make any sense and discredited the validity of the model.
Do you realize how insanely nonsensical this result is? You increase the supposed drag coefficient by 30% and get a 1% shift in time to range. Bias, bias, bias.
3 Likes
He’s done a very good job overall modelling the missiles in War Thunder. Is he perfect? No. Do I trust him to do his job? Yes. Also yeah, I totally main Russian vehicles…
2 Likes
I’ve done subsequent testing to ensure there wasn’t an issue. It still yielded further range than common Google results will tell you. The ~80km range limitation is nonsensical. Would require that the missiles has nearly half the total impulse or significantly higher drag than any CAD model shows for the grid fins. At best it might be a battery limitation but I doubt it. It’s just the max range for a lower speed and lower alt launch.
You can ask others who’ve looked into the drag profile such as @BBCRF his CAD model totally goes against what Mythic claims about the grid fins.
If you want people to take you seriously then you’re going to need to explain what the parameters you were using and how they generated an erroneous result and how you’ve since corrected the issue to make, you know, sense. I’m accusing you of bias because you don’t do things like this, and failing to notice or refusing to consider when your model has issues is classic confirmation bias.
Also I’m not taking BBCRF’s CFD model seriously at all. I’ve read and posted the material from published sources and they’re quite consistent that the transonic issues are serious in terms of drag impact and extend over a wide range around Mach 1. CFD is complicated and easy to get wrong and therefore I trust NASA Ames infinitely more than some person on the internet.
3 Likes
I’m not going to waste my time further testing to prove to you anything. My work speaks for itself and the arrival of FOX-3s is imminent to the game. Even when stuff like the R-27ER is added and (initially) underperforming people cry about it “overperforming” or Russian bias … blah blah.
You’d have a better case crying about the addition of such a missile when it outpaces everything else in the game by such a large margin. I didn’t want the R-27ER, I wanted the R-73. Take that up with Gaijin tho.
Unfortunately, the R-77 outperforms the AIM-120A. It is what it is. If they add it soon you can take solice in the fact that all current Russian aircraft can carry no more than 4 of them.
1 Like
Man here I was worrying that you’d actually put some work into your model and I’d have to retract my accusations. Shows me for overestimating you.
3 Likes
It’s either going to be this or we’re going to see F15/18, SU-27SM (or whatever the one with R77 capability is), all in the same update.
Either way I find it extremely hard to believe that after Gaijin swung the pendulum towards the US with the F-16C we won’t be seeing a new Soviet dominant fighter this patch.
1 Like
The Su-27 is likely to crush most/all opponents when its added through mix of a better FM, better weapons, and a larger missile load. I think its dubious it will have any real competition until the Rafale or Eurofighters are added.
Things like NATO’s advantage in radar technology matter very little in WT, and most notably, the advantage in radar based EW is non-existent. The spotting mechanic also tends to reduce the advantage of good avionics.
The one saving grace the western fighters may have will be low smoke motors, but as seen with the AIM-54C, gaijin very clearly cares very little about historical accuracy when choosing which missile gets it, so I wouldnt be suprised to see future western missiles have smokey motors.
It also doesnt help that WT’s lofting/trajectory shaping mechanics remain atrocious, severily hampering things like the AIM-7M and AIM-54’s, but also the AIM-120’s if it remains this way in the future. Meanwhile, the R-77 apparently does not employ trajectory shaping, rendering this a non-issue for russian mains.
With the Russian players campaigning for the R-77 to retain its range and maneuvrability advantage in high speed launch conditions but to get the same transonic drag figures of planar fin missiles, theyre setting themselves up very nicely to be simply downright oppressive in the world of war thunder air RB…
Obviously though, the russian air main WT community and gaijin are vastly more experienced in missile design and aerodynamics than NATO researchers and all air to air missile design bureau and/or company existing on earth. The R-77 and grid fins are the greatest air to air missile design concept ever to have graced this existence
3 Likes
I don’t think is a secret that when the su-27 comes, it will be the top dog in Air Rb. Being able to carry 6 R-27s/ER/ETs and 4 R-73s, it out missiles the F-16, and F-15. Only the F-18 can compete in terms of missile count. On a side note, its still sad that the 54c still doesn’t get its reduced smoke motor.
It would have the most impact in a low alt shot at a higher alt target, which makes it important to demonstrate the immense drag it would suffer.
Provide scenarios backed by worthwhile sources for me to test where drag would better effect the missile. Your sarcasm doesn’t detract from my work.
I don’t think the pendulum is in favor of the F-16C tbh.
Is there such a launch on video or in documentation for the R-77 from which I can compare?
Both the Rafale and Eurofighter also carry 10 missiles in normal configuration and iirc can carry even more, tho uncomon.
As for the F/A-18, it might outmatch the Su-27 in missile count, but not in flight performance, so it’ll still lose in WT, handedly.
The AIM-54C is in a tragic state, not that that horse hasn’t been beat to death in the AIM-54 thread, not that the devs give a shit, because no matter how many sources are brought up, or bug reports filled, the devs are happy to leave the AIM-54C in its outright worthless state. There isn’t a single situation in-game anyone would be able to get the 54C anywhere near M5.0. As it currently stands, M3.0+ is a stretch in any in-game launch condition.
even assuming the missile drag is the same as other missile 80km seems very sensical
missile burns for only around 6s and is 175 kg, with a 22 kg warhead. it’s really nothing out of the ordinary for missiles of this class (6s burn for mica, around 6 for aim120A), delta v and max speed also seem to be in the same region.
if you compare it to the usual figures for other missiles (80km mica, 60-70km aim120A), it seems very much in line
as for the stepanovich guy, i’m sorry to say but it doesn’t look like he knows what he’s doing half the time.
The mistral and its 4s instead of 2s burn and its 12G limit is a prime example of this. The explanation given with the “mistral is a rolling missile and the 30G limit is only the maximum reached” is quite laughable considering first hand sources claim it can hit targets maneuvering at up to 8 to 9G, which means the average G load would have to be at least double what it currently is in game…
So yeah, i’d take what he says with a pinch of salt
3 Likes
Nuh uh.
Its this, several times it has happened
2 Likes
Luckily, we were able to obtain really accurate information for the AIM-120A/B to determine the range when launched around ~12-13km from 0.9 mach on a 0.9 mach target. (~74km). The R-77 in similar scenarios even with absurdly high drag coefficients has a range between 80 and 100km.
The difference is that the R-77 does not loft, and is all-boost 6-8s where the AIM-120A/B have less than a 2s boost followed by ~5-6s sustainer.
What Stepanovich says makes sense imo, but it may be a bit misguided and he may not understand all things. He’s not an expert as we know. To prove him wrong or show him he’s correct would require a detailed and logical explanation backed by sources. It’s been done in the past (several times) and he has turned around. We can be thankful he isn’t like MythicPi who just throws logic out the window and believes whatever he wants to believe with minimal evidence.