They are your sources, you are now desperately trying to distance yourself from.
You never tested the missile until you started getting caught in lies. Your dishonesty at this point is pathological in nature. You are instinctively dishonest.
You relied on a website to tell you instead of actually playing the game and got caught red handed.
You verified the validity of the charts as your only argument that the acceleration is legitimate in your own written word. You cannot keep track of what you say, it’s actually sad.
“Modelled with correct information on each variant’s motors & fins AoA etc.”
You already verified the ER matches real world sources & performances (shy of 800 m/s 8-10seconds) & mentioned by name the source the ER is better modelled over the DCS…
Moscow Aviation Institute
Just wait lol. Think of something else to make up in the meantime.
You verified that War Thunder acceleration performance peaks speed at 1km just ashy of 800 m/s & peaks in top speed at around 8-10s flight time.
You then IMMEDIATELY praise the model & named the source all thanks to Moscow Aviation Institute.
Now you are desperately trying to discredit your own sources and distance yourself from what you said. Because YOU know now that the R27ER is grossly overperforming much more than the DCS model LOL.
They are not sources. The source for the performance of the R-27ER is from Moscow Aviation Institute. That is where the chart you didn’t quote right there comes from. Here is the chart
The other two graphs as I said;
First is the simulation website. I showed it to be false after doing in-game testing verifying that your claim of 3.5+ mach was false. I used it previously under the assumption it was correct to compare against the DCS model of the missile. It showed that the War Thunder model was considerably slower.
The second is the DCS changes pre and post “fix” where they made changes to the R-27 series based on some new information at the time.
Neither were taken in context as the DCS graph was only shown to prove War Thunders’ model of the R-27 is better than the DCS one.
Here is your claim:
You claim that it is much faster than 1,000 m/s but that is impossible because it has just 1,075 m/s deltaV in-game to begin with. The absolute fastest it can go from standstill in a no-drag environment is 1,075 m/s. At 1km altitude the speed of sound is ~336 m/s. 1,075 + 336 = 1,411 m/s still not accounting for drag.
You said it was DOUBLED (double 800?) This would imply 1600 m/s… which would require launching at above mach 1, and the absolute top speed of the MiG-29 to my knowledge is approximately mach 1.3… so doing some simple math negates the need for an actual test.
1.3 mach (437 m/s) + 3,195 mach (1,075 m/s) = 1,512 m/s.
The absolute peak top speed of the missile in that scenario completely disregarding drag is 100 m/s slower than your claim.
The website indicated this, which we have proven wrong. If you launch at mach 1 and 1km altitude it probably is more in-line with the 1,000 m/s. There is no line for 1km altitude so the information would need to be extrapolated. Luckily there are at least 3 other lines drawn for testing and datapoints that require no extrapolation.
Launch speed, acceleration based on speed over time is shown… the missile already matches these datapoints quite well. For someone who has provided no source for the R-27 that matches your absurd claims you are quite confident that I am the one “making stuff up”.
In War Thunder, 2 mach launch (600 m/s) at 10km the missile accelerates to a peak of mach 5 (1,497 m/s) and is about 100 m/s shorter than expected. This was highlighted by my previous testing that I literally mentioned earlier… see here
Gaijin accepts that it underperforms at altitude because it was optimized for 5km and less performance to match the range and acceleration charts for this area and not for altitudes above 5km.
Finally, the DCS source. Currently it peaks at 1,400 m/s at 10km altitude when launched from 300 m/s.
This shows that had it been launched with an additional 300 m/s speed it would have a peak much closer to the datapoint in the MAI (Moscow Aviation Institute) chart… but likely still above.
In conclusion, the DCS source more closely follows the high altitude performance of the R-27ER than the War Thunder model for the reasons the devs listed in the aforementioned report proving that the R-27ER indeed underperformed at those altitudes.
Very well then.
You didn’t do anything but make a claim of +3.5 mach. It doesn’t go that fast in the conditions you listed.
Instead, you claimed that it was faster than the website indicated and I ran some tests. I proved the website was erroneous after you cast doubt on this. My tests actually still proved your claim wrong.
I didn’t state multiple times that I verified the websites performance in-game. The quotes you took from me didn’t claim this either. I have literally been saying that since I ran in-game tests the website was wrong. I did the due diligence (unlike you) and did appropriate testing.
You seem to have misread what I said once again. The overall deltaV is 1,075 m/s. It is impossible for the missile to go 1,000 m/s at 1km alt due to drag. No test is needed to verify this but feel free to prove yourself wrong.
There was no argument it was just a comparison of performance between two games. There is nothing to argue about.
Again, it was not an argument. The missile performs according to the chart as closely as Gaijin wants to and where it doesn’t - it underperforms.
You didn’t quote the MAI source, you quoted DCS and the erroneous website.
Can you provide any source or video showing the R-27 overperforms at all? I’m still waiting.
All launches above & below at 1km altitude = 3280ft.
All launches have easily & successfully exceeded (while maneuvering) beyond Mach 3.1 =1,027.03 Meters per second
Fastest recorded speed was Mach 3.4 =1,126.42 Meters per Second
All launches reached their top speed in 7 seconds or less.
Fastest recorded acceleration was 5.72 seconds
I just proven the impossible & proven that you actually have no idea how the game actually plays & anything about aerodynamics. What’s worst you are pathologically dishonest.
Same 1km altitude & lower the R2ER insane acceleration shown in actual game battles at top tier. (something you have no experience in).
Notice how far the opponent is and how fast they are travelling in the opposite direction.
The reminds me. You have zero experience in top tier battles the last 4 updates & why you rely on websites to tell you how the game performs.
@BBCRF you have zero experience in top tier at all and do not even own a single aircraft with R27s & you do not have any access to face them whatsoever. You have no idea how they perform in game but are here purely to cheerlead as a Soviet Main
I have more game experience in the Chinese Flanker alone than both of you in current Soviet Top Tier combined 10x over.
DeltaV is his reasoning without playing the game. I can care less about his flawed logic.
I only care how the missile actually flies in WT battles.
The missile travels and maneuvers beyond his comprehension in WT.
I am playing at speeds in which the game is fought & won at low altitude.
So is the missile overperforming or the Su27 & Mig29? Pick one.
It does not matter how fast I was flying, it was low altitude, and the rocket motors accelerated the missile under 7 seconds to speeds beyond its technical capability while maneuvering.
This is beyond his limitation of what he thinks the game
His explanation where he literally explains the variables are not irrelevant
In the first quote, he literally explains what I was telling you
In the second quote, he says:
This was worded a bit weird sure, but it’s not hard to work out that in “the missile to go 1,000 m/s” the ‘to go’ was meant as in accelerate (Δv), especially since he explained the whole “from a stand-still” and calculated it for you some messages previous, In the paragraph you quoted:
Does the R27ER exceed every limitation he just claimed?
He named multiple limitations: DeltaV, drag at 1km & his idea of what the speed of sound is at 1km.
I have not read your your whole conversation, I don’t know about all of his claims. I just logged on today and saw this ‘proof’ of him lying, I looked at the quotes and to me it seemed like a big misunderstanding, of acceleration vs top-speed. I pointed out that he explained this to you in the post you quoted, there is no need to attack me for it.
This is because thrust is static and does not change with altitude or air pressure in the game. To match 0-5km performance (which gaijin does for all missiles with the AIM-54 being a special exception).
At lower altitudes the thrust would be less in real life, but burn time longer. The in-game performance was to meet the 5km data from the chart. It underperforms above and to prevent overperformance they adjusted the drag model. This is why it is important to look at the specific datapoints and reasoning I put before you. The devs explanation was clear and you haven’t touched on that.
@CorporalApollo there was no misunderstanding, he just can’t let go of the past and wishes to heckle me. Unfortunately for him it doesn’t make any of his points valid. He’s dying on a non-existent hill because he has supported his position with nothing.
I know you won’t want to be dragged into the kerfuffle but I didn’t feel the need to respond earlier and really didn’t need to now as you saw… What I said speaks for itself. You yourself understood my position quite well.
On this particular point I’d like to re-establish the fact that you were wrong about top speed.
You were also wrong about AoA, range, acceleration, fins producing lift, etc.
You were quite literally wrong about every claim you’ve made in regards to the missile. Perhaps you’d like to look at the range charts and see if it has the correct range? We have the Su-27 manual data on frontal and rear hemisphere launch range from sea level to high altitude.
The acceleration is adjusted to match the 5km altitude figures from the chart the devs explained this already (see screenshot of their response below and click here for the original report).
However I must point out that it underperforms in top speed here by nearly 100 m/s as well. The top speed comes out to mach 4.06 (1,301 m/s). The chart shows 1400 m/s. This is not a big deal as the range and performance charts are still met otherwise…
And as you can see here, the acceleration is approximately 8 seconds and matches the chart above.
The error in your particular testing was not following the specified parameters. Higher drag conditions or higher launch speeds will cause the missile to reach the top speed sooner rather than later. The launch at lower altitudes and from different speeds than the chart will of course skew the results. In this case, there is no datapoint specified below 5km but we do see a trend. In-game missiles thrust does not change based on altitude so nothing in-game follows this trend. Thrust does not increase or decrease and burn time does not either… so in order for Gaijin to properly model range based on various altitudes they must adjust their atmospheric or drag models until such a time that they can work on dynamic thrust plots for missiles.
From a standstill, yes. The missile doesn’t exceed 1,075 m/s in any conditions because that is the overall deltaV output of the missile. We can calculate this easily from the datamined engine parameters and start / end weight.
I wouldn’t classify honestly debunking absurd claims as “freaking out”. Your mannerisms in this discussion are degenerating over time. I suggest you police yourself up a little bit and behave more professionally if you insist on continuing this one sided debate.
