a better comparison is this image, where the r-77 has a much tighter turning radius as can be seen . but pl-12 is still the third/fourth best missile in pull after r-77/771 and mica.
pl-12 can be launched in higher off bore than r-77 due to its gimbal limit, but is worse at those shots due to its lack of pull compared to r-77.
It has better initital acceleration than the r-77-1, but other than that its worse than that missile in every way due to lack of pull and range.
People complained about the C-5 because it sacrificed G-overload for range, and the range different was very niche - iirc the A/B had a faster time to target in some scenarios as well. The PL-12 and R-77 on the other hand are two entirely different missiles (C-5 and A/B are just different variants) with different pros and cons.
Missile turn radius is important but time to target and greater off-bore capabilities is more significant, being able to go from defensive then offensive, and back to defensive is a great attribute any fighter in air realistic can have.
This image is a great example, almost in the notch and being able to fire my missile regardless
I already agreed that the R-77-1 and R-77 turned more aggressively than the PL-12 but that’s only 30% of the picture, being able to fire a missile at an extreme angle without being restricted by maximum angle of launch is a extremely important pro.
But I do concede, ever since the R-77-1 lost its maximum launch angle, it overall is a better missile than the PL-12, with the PL-12 only having one advantage (that being short to medium range acceleration, important but not game changing) - the MICA-EM still remains insanely good, French players eating good.
Full video, I kill the guy but couldn’t fit it in the entire clip
1 Like
yeah that’s basically what i was saying here
1 Like
I do believe later batches of the PL-12 would remedy the severe difference in performance between itself and the R-77-1 in range and other niche aspects, the PL-12A would be like a side grade to the R-77-1 iirc, greater range and acceleration but inferior when it comes to high off-bore capabilities and overall G-overload.
I wonder how the J-15 would perform in-game, with its limited countermeasure count (same as the SU-33) but more overall missiles (two extra pylons like the 33).
1 Like
have you flown with r-77/rvv ae? I do think the difference in pull is definitely noticeable over the pl-12, albeit doesn’t come into play in most shots
I’ve used the RVV-AE before but not the R-77-1, I’ve always liked how far you can pull the PL-12 to its gimbal limit before being unable to fire, it makes jousting at close to medium range incredibly easy. In combination with the excellent 1493 radar, it makes the J-11B easily my most favourite Flanker.
I’ve also thoroughly used the RVV-AE (R-77) and have relatively little complaints other than the limited range, I just find the PL-12 more usable for air realistic (especially defensively) especially since it has a faster time to target, great manoeuvrability and a incredibly high gimbal limit.
Now knowing that the R-77-1 isn’t restricted by maximum launch angle, I’d probably enjoy using it as well, only issue is that its only found on the SU-30SM, an absolute boat of a vehicle. It’d probably be tied for the best air to air missile in my book alongside the MICA-EM.
The best single top tier aircraft probably still remains the Rafale and by a large margin, skill ceiling for the vehicle is insanely high
1 Like
R77-1 Is Better than Pl12
3 Likes
Now knowing that the R-77-1 isn’t realistic (restricted*) by maximum launch angle, I’d probably enjoy using it as well - It’d probably be tied for the best air to air missile in my book alongside the MICA-EM - @TPS_Hydra
Yeah the R-77-1 is better overall, I agreed in the message above (and some other messages a while back), China could use the PL-12A right about now.
Embarrassing typo as well, meant restricted
1 Like
Fixing the PL-12 and AAM-4 is more practical than adding the PL-12A at this stage. If parameters like drag remain unchanged and the propulsion data of the SD-10A from DCS is adopted, the PL-12 would achieve long-range performance comparable to the AIM-120C and R-77-1 while retaining its current maneuverability. However, the PL-12A shares its rocket motor with the PL-15, making its introduction into the game impossible without significant nerfs to its performance.
In the test shown in the figure below, the guidance duration and flight range limits were removed for all missiles, and identical loft parameters were applied.
Launch Parameters
Spoiler
Fixed engine data for the PL-12 and PL-12A.
Spoiler
1 Like
Tbf the R-77 and R-77-1 could have their drag models tweaked slightly as well
Based on the HUD footage released by Russia, if the in-game air density distribution at varying altitudes is accurate, the current R-77-1 demonstrates shorter-than-realistic range when launched from high altitude against low-altitude targets, yet exceeds its actual range when engaging high-altitude targets. This indicates that the R-77-1 is modeled with excessive drag (or an inaccurate drag curve) while having overpowered propulsion.
1 Like
bad modelling of grid fins I think, it should have less drag but bigger equivalent area.
I’m unsure whether the current CXK values for missiles account for the fins. If grid fin drag is modeled separately, then the CXK for the R-77 series, AAM-4, and PL-12 should all be reduced to below 1.5, with their drag characteristics instead reflected through the body’s fineness ratio and fins’equivalent area. Additionally, grid fins should experience an aerodynamic shock stall within a specific range of the transonic and low supersonic regimes.
Just note from what we’ve seen the model of the missile of PL-12 is tweaked for PL-12A.
IDK about that, think they are just ‘weird’ normal fins as modelled.
That does seem about right from what I have seen, although the drag at high AoA could be reduced although I am not sure how much that helps.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. Currently, both the PL-12 and SD-10A in the game are modeled using the SD-10A’s weight to match the SD-10’s range performance. They have no connection to the PL-12A.
I was refering to ur test results.
I mean that for PL-12A the model is slightly different to PL-12 so the drag will (I assume) also be different. Just saying that to say that the PL-12A is not simply PL-12 with more thrust, and that as a result it is still kinda under Gaijin’s influence as to what they make of the model.
The PL-12A has an identical external shape to the PL-12, with only a difference in weight, so both share the same drag parameters.
As a copy paste premium it’d be nice for a new rank 8 premium, regardless of if it comes as a fox1 or fox3 plane, though it seems Gaijin has decided JH7 bombing will be the sloption of choice for China.
But as a tech tree addition it’s a waste of time and RP. It’ll either be a worse SU-27SK/J-11 with ERs only, a slightly better J-11A if given R-77s, or a significantly worse J-11B if given PL-12s. Either way all of those sitting at 13.7 is just splitting hairs. They’d be better off just giving the J-11A the SPO L-150 it should have and calling it a day, move on to giving us actual new top tier additions like we’ve been missing.
3 Likes
I was waiting for a good top tier jet to grind China. I guess i have to wait another year.
Be patient we have only few vehicles, gaijin said this year we will get 2 major updates so maybe they will show us that new jet in teaser.
1 Like