I think I’ve flown the F-16 in Air Sim twice? Those stats are from trying to limit the amount of Ka-52s in GSB while being hounded by Ty-90 flingers, Vihkrs, Pantsirs, and Soviet air
2 Likes
Not that the stats of a few players matters. The 6x AIM-9M and performance of the Gripen places it squarely at top BR. There are no useful SARH missiles on that platform. Likewise, a ton of meta IR missiles is all the Mirage 2000 series have going for them. The F-14B carries more AIM-7Ms than the F-15 and yet it’s a lower BR… They all share one unique feature.
Useful IR missiles with IRCCM.
There are other examples, but nothing quite as blatant as the obvious higher efficiency of the airframes equipped with 6x AIM-9M in air RB and sim over those with the R-27ER.
This is true, but it does not make the Gripen the best especially after it’s been reduced in FM a couple times & CMs deploy more to run down the number.
How well do you know what makes it top of the BR?
From the 16 games you played the jet at release?
1 Like
Besides the armament and FM? What makes the MiG-29G suddenly top BR? Why is the F-16C top BR?
Certainly the only logical common factor here isn’t the armament of 6x IRCCM equipped infrared missiles?
If the R-27ER was this insane meta shaping missile like the few of you claim, it would not have been retained on 12.0 fighters whereas the AIM-9M instantly makes aircraft with worse FM’s a whole BR higher.
Few? Everyone across the internet. It’s pretty widely known that the ER is way too spicy for a radar missile that was really guided by grossly inferior jury rigged Mig-23ML Saphir radar dishes.
it is only you who does not play top tier but lives on the forum & another dude @BBCRF who does not even have access to a single Mig29 or the Su27.
You guys think its actually underperforming in WT.
Yoooo.
No one flies the Mig29G with 6x R73s without equipping the ER as their main loadout. Additionally, no one is flying the Mig29G much at all these days.
You came to that conclusion from the 15 games you played in the Mig29G at its release too?
Cannot disagree with that whatsoever, actually.
My apologies & condolences.
1 Like
Can you compare in tacview mode?
Tac view or not, the missiles are all doing the same thing
1 Like
It is, I showed you it’s not reaching the correct top speeds and falls short on head-on range conditions at medium and higher alts.
The fact of the matter is that a weapon currently able to be completely ignored is not shaping the meta. You want it removed? … Well cry for them to fix the overperforming AIM-7 and underperforming R-27ER. That might legitimately make them rethink it.
@Ziggy1989 has already made it clear he doesn’t think it should be removed entirely. Just from a few of the MiG29s and that it should be nerfed to make it more realistic….
1 Like
We established that it is underperforming kinematically, nerfing one specific missile based on real world maintenance reliability would not be a fair solution as practically all equipment in the game had a reliability lower than 30% leading up to 80s era and newer equipment.
As far as I know, it performs as it should kinematically. Did testing a while ago and it performed acurrately to known shots. Down to the second. The missiles hit repeated nonmaneuvering and maneuvering targets at specified ranges down to the second and a half.
That report casually just takes the 76 CS but ignores the 77SMC and 84 weapons files which also give the values of 5750 and 1018 lbf. If you just reduce drag thrust you’ll need to increase to account for the reduction in drag. You might aswell ask youself, are the values given peak or average? Because if the values given are average then you’d be scaling down.
According to the same user there were discrepancies with known shots or scenarios that needed to be addressed as well. If you or @Flame2512 or maybe @Gunjob have recorded tests using known scenarios that say it is accurate then I’ll recede the statement. Fact of the matter is that it will not perform to all known data or charts due to the discrepancy in thrust even if it was adjusted via drag. It could be more accurately modeled in regard to this and it would be detrimental to performance in certain areas.
With the R-27ER, it is underperforming slightly at medium and high altitudes (intentionally).
Tested a couple of cases several times on those specified in the tornado manual. Quite accurate, I tried to look the recordings up before I did the post but I deleted them a couple months ago when I organized my files.
Again how can you say they are peak and not avergare values when those values are repeated in multiple documents and why would someone state peak values of an instant for a values that represents a certain larger amount of time in a technical document. There’s no formula.
The sparrow also matches charts ±5%.
1 Like
It is clear they cannot be anything but peak values. The total impulse is also given so if you do the math it equals more than 37,000 lb-s when the documents state 30,000 lb-s. Thrust and drag should both be reduced, maneuvering energy retention will also need to be adjusted somehow. The in-game model currently matches some specific scenarios and is off by quite a large margin in others according to that user. I would recommend DM’ing him for more information as he was the one who ran the tests.
And do other documents not hold any value? what if its an error in the document for impulse. Its less likely for the thrust numbers to be wrong wrong on 2 and much much less likely for 3 documents. And why would you put a value of a peak at an instant when the value you want is over a space of time?
With charts, was the impact speed higher than 0? Higher so that the required doppler to activate the radio fuze. And higher to actually pull G’s and hit a maneuvering target and not just fall out of the sky when fired at that range?
Measurement of total impulse gives us a better idea the performance of the missile than peak thrust values. The total impulse is the same in several documents as well. The thrust values are clearly “peak”.
Obviously the best option for trying to model the missile is a thrust and speed over time chart for various altitudes. We have such data for R-27ER.
But then again it won’t match any the charts performance, time of flight for specific engagements nor have enough energy to reach a target that could maneuver at last moment at Raero. Motor alone wont get you far, thrust changes for altitude and on the case for the Sparrow a long burn will reduce the Cd. Right now they match the TOFs I’ve done with nonmanuevring/maneuveing targets, I don’t see the need for more tinkering. Specifically as it could affect maneuvering targets. More rework would throw the good job to the trash only for it to match “in paper” engine thrust but not match any of the performance charts which do as of now. Basically a whole rework to end up the same thing ±5%. I don’t see the point. Guidance/electronics would be a better use of the time and energy, specifically when one in particular is a magically and totally different than its IRL counterpart.
Gaijin already stated they only need to match performance to a specific altitude (0-5km) for missiles. There are few exceptions to this… But amending the missiles’ overall impulse and correcting range or time to target with drag will bring it closer to matching all the available data points than having erroneously high thrust and overly compensating drag.
So basically to end up to the same thing ±5%. The Time of flight shots were up to the 60s territory. Quite enough after burn for the overcompensating drag to actually have its effect. They were not close range shots. And they were at 20k ft, so well within atmospheric modelling limitations.
EW/ guidance fixing will be much better use of the time