The performance is still similar to AIM-7F, rather it just lofts a bit to achieve the longer ranges in rear aspect. It’s not much better than the AIM-7P models in that regard.
AIM-120A isn’t getting smokeless motor?
Contrary to your fear mongering the data from the devserver indicates that the R-27ER is not in fact that much faster than everything else as you predicted.
1 Like
This is subject to change though
1 Like
Obviously, yet given that there is minimal evidence to counter whatever decision Gaijin decides, it is unlikely these numbers will change much.
The chart says aim-7m reaches a peak velocity of mach 6.6?
typo?
1 Like
At 80km… higher altitudes, un-lofted, and from very high launch speed the R-27ER appears to have inferior performance against the AMRAAM than the scenario indicated previously. ‘fear mongering’ is not what I was doing. I simply looked at a realistic maximum launch range scenario for the AIM-120 model I have and compared it to the in-game R-27ER.
Earlier I hadn’t taken a look at the new missile data.
Now that I have, the AIM-120 in the files has less overall deltaV and slightly higher drag than my model has.
Additionally, as shown in your own post… The R-27ER is nearly 1 mach faster than the competition.
I don’t know where he got this chart, but looking at the in-game data it appears the AMRAAM in-game is inferior to the model I was using for testing.
And yes the AIM-7M peak speed has to be a typo.
1 Like
In theory amraam should I be receiving a couple major buffs to its energy and range shortly though. So I’d wait before making judgements.
2 Likes
Yes, as I said. If it isn’t performing according to the data… it should be buffed. It should only be changed in accordance with real data, though.
For example, it is modeled as 40G when it should be 50G… or if they want to do single plane it would be 35G.
1 Like
Aren’t these all still placeholder values? We’ve got an entire major cycle before we can expect to see accurate values for anything
1 Like
Yep exactly, iirc R-77 is lofting in game which is incorrect right? I imagine the motor will get turned up to compensate.
Mainly yes but they would want to test accurate missiles
The balance dynamic of R-77 and AIM-120B will be quite different once fixed
Fairly certain the R-77 doesn’t loft, so that appears incorrect. I’d need to reference their datamine again for that missile but I’d rather do it in the R-77 thread.
1 Like
I suspect the R-77 we have is supposed to be an R-77-1? the 3D model is a -1 and the performance seems closer to that
Who knows, but I find this unlikely as the motor stats match the standard R-77 data. Let’s move to the other thread.
Here are the results of my AMRAAM testing on the dev server. All results are for head on launches against co-speed, co-altitude, non-manoeuvring targets:
I’ll investigate rear aspect performance next.
11 Likes
Where does the expected comes from?
Want to test this? Fire an aim120b flying at mach 0.94 520kts airspeed, 11k ft at a target flying towards you at 10kft 364 kts IAS. Vc should be ~1020 kts with this geometry. Ezzy and fire at 17.5km. SHould take like 17seconds to reach target
Performance seems to be very accurate, id attribute it primarily to poor lofting performances. Gaijin models missiles for rear aspect performance at 3-5km alts universally. Most missiles in-game ‘underperform’ in maximum range shot conditions by similar amounts.
2 Likes