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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Nuh uh.
Its this, several times it has happened
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.
what parameters were used for each missile ? especially delta v, thrust and Cx
Also have you tried to run the test with a non lofting amraam ? because i have an impression lofting is quite underperforming in game, but that is just an impression
that doesn’t matter much, what matters is what’s the delta v between engine ignition and cut off, as well as the distance travelled when engine cuts off.
A fast accelerating missile can have an advantage at closer ranges, but that’s pretty much it.
It is also no secret that the faster an object goes, the draggier it gets, so accelerating too fast isn’t necessarily a good thing for a long range missile.
Total deltaV can be calculated but I simply input the best known data from public sources, found specific range information and then used that for comparison and was able to (with a high degree of certainty) replicate the missiles drag coefficient based the correct thrust, propellant weight, missile overall weight, burn time, etc.
The R-77 data I have is less comprehensive than the AIM-120’s… but it is still well supported with known burn time, propellant mass, etc. There is just less available information for launch parameters to do affirmative testing of the in-game model.
It’s interesting, and worth noting that the AIM-120C-5 switched to an 8s all boost motor. This is something more useful for close engagements, but it also allows it to do some other unique stuff like high-angle off-bore launches and instead of the initial <2s booster being used up in the turn, it can chase down a target.
In the case of the R-77, that is true… but to less of an extent than a conventional missile like the AMRAAM since grid fins have much better high supersonic drag coefficients.
Its not just an impression, lofting is extremely rudementary in-game, and missiles that depend on trajectory shapping for extra performance have all sorts of problems with it in-game.
AIM-54C physically cannot be made to loft to the 45° degree loft NASA determined was “ideal” for a parabollic shot, as gaijin has coded it to be impossible for it to loft optimally and still track a target despite the missile being very much capable of doing so. Max loft is the 15° limit you can acheive via manual lofting pre-launch, and the missile will tend to curve down to keep the target within -7.75° of elevation
AIM-7M just straight up doesnt have trajectory shaping (nor does it have many other things like most notably its low altitude smart fuze and direction warhead, which the 54C also lacks)
AGM-114’s loft code is atrocious, which is why instead of falling on targets, it falls before it reaches the target and then tries to hit it from the side after burning all its energy trying not to slam into the ground…
In WT, lofting is done in the ultra simplistic way of setting a hardcoded angle at which the missile will try to fly and a hardcoded angle at which the missile will keep the target.
Some loft codes:
AIM-54C:
Loft angle: 17.5° (optimal according to NASA is 45°)
Target elevation: -7.75°
AGM-114(All):
Loft angle: 9.6°
Target elevation: -15°
PARS 3 LR:
Loft angle: 10°
Target elevation: -25°
Spike ER:
Loft angle: 20°
Target elevation: -40°
Kh-29 (all):
Loft angle: 27°
Target elevation: -35°
Generally speaking, it can be seen that the americans repeatedly have the worst loft code ingame on their weapons which have it, the germans are substantially better, but remain nowhere near both the russians and Spike ER’s. This isnt commonly known tho, as the russians tend to use direct laser guided munitions if theyre using PGM’s at all in-game, so the fact they have some of if not the best lofting weapons ingame is irrelevant to them, and the Spike’s are a relatively new addition, while the PARS are finnicky and rare.
As of this moment tho, no nation uses lofting in air to air missiles except america, and seeing as russia apparently doesnt use it with their R-77 either, I doubt gaijin will give enough of a shit to revamp the lofting mechanics in-game or even revisit the lofting code for american missiles so they arent so bad at lofting…
Maybe it can also help it loft quicker. But that’s a if, and frankly speaking i don’t know what choices made the egieneers go that way. One counter example would be meteor, which basically is a air to air cruise missile (kind of)
True for AMRAAM, but it doesn’t work for MICA
Also the amraam A is stated to have less range than a r-77 is you go by publicaly available numbers. from what i could find, 60-70 for amraam A and 80 for r-77 (what paremeters of launch is a mistery however). So i’m not denying that r-77 should be longer range than a Amraam A, just that i highly doubt it can go further than 80 km.
The Lofting codes are indeed quite broken, the Hellfire being a prime example.
But i also wonder if the drag is modelled correctly.
I often “loft” my 530Ds “manually” (pointing the nose of my plane up to force a high angle loft, around 20° or 30°) and it has to do a sharp dive at the end of its course. It also seems like what the missile gained by going through less dense air was lost by the longer trajectory and added maneuvering required at the end of the flight path, which is what makes me wonder if it’s modelled correctly (other than the loft angles that are obviously wrong).
I just stopped doing it all together now, and only fire it when 15/20 km from target.
As a side not, it really doesn’t help that most fighting occurs at low altitude in an extended furball. The multipath bug which makes radar guided missiles plant themselves in the ground and the overall draggier environments makes those missiles perform quite poorly
