DCS may be correct. But the R27ER is greatly superior to the R27R of War Thunder in acceleration. Some would say its even better than the R in manueverability too.
These differences are not that great in the graph you posted if I am reading it correctly.
Additionally, the R27ER reaches its top speed almost immediately at sea level just as it does up at high altitude in WT.
Lastly. The R27ER is heavier than the R, yes? Therefore, a desire that it also become more maneuverable than it is now does not make sense from a physics pov.
What do you think? Is the R27ER overperforming in ANY degree whatsoever in WT? You sound reasonable.
I think you have to agree it’s either performing perfectly in acceleration, but then that means its overperforming in maneuverability, or its underperforming in maneuverability but then that means its overperforming in acceleration.
It cannot have both and be better than the R in every way. The missile was designed to have extended range. Not replace the R. Extending the range has drawbacks.
I understand you have frustrations with the lack of modelling in US radars and radar guided weaponry. I do too.
But when you make comments like this, it makes devs take you less seriously and defeats the overall objective. Getting the proper performances out of the Tomcat and Eagle while satisfying the developer’s biggest concern.
R-27ER having higher thrust to weight ratio means it can accelerate faster into max G pull speeds and sustain that speed through the pull, resulting in better maneuverability.
I don’t have any aircraft with the r-27er which means i can’t evaluate anything by myself.
R-27R and R-27ER having same minimum launch distance. if the R-27ER’s minimum launch distance was longer, we would be able to assume that it can not maneuver as fast as R-27R at close ranges. This is not the case though.
yes, and the ER in WT is by far way faster than the R.
Are you going to sit there and say the ER is not insanely faster than the R at all altitudes and ranges in War thunder?
Or you going to say it’s the R that is the one actually underperforming?
You keep defeating your own argument and showing me that the ER and R have similar acceleration performances in DCS. But that is not how they perform in WT.
So which is it? Is the ER overperforming in acceleration? Or is it the R who is underperforming in acceleration? Because they are drastically different one from another in acceleration and immediate top speed.
The charts already show er being faster by some margin. The increased thrust to weight ratio of r-27er means it should accelerate way better through maneuvering and therefore be even increasingly faster in situations where both missiles are pulling 35G.
The chart showed the superiority of R-27ER without maneuvering. With higher thrust to weight ratio, when both missiles have to accelerate through a 35G maneuver the R-27ER will be even increasingly faster.
Since the R-27ER greatly outperforms the R-27R in situations where any maneuvering is happening then it should be like that in game too. Again, it should be recognized that in combat situations where the missile has to maneuver, the R-27ER will accelerate way more stronger compared to R-27R than what is shown in the charts.
If the straight line acceleration is somehow highly unrealistic you can make a bug report about it. Attach some sources and results of your testing and you’re good.
Why would a heavier & “much” faster accelerating missile outperform a lighter & slower one in maneuvering??
You understand this is completely contrary to physics correct?
You understand why the R73 is slower than other missiles off the rail yes? You understand why aircraft can turn better going 500km as opposed to 1000km right?
If the R27ER accelerates MUCH faster as you say according to DCS over the R27R, even being much heavier with the same control surfaces.
Why would you declare that it be more maneuverable?
If the difference between performance exists in real life then that is why it exists in game.
Higher thrust to weight ratio, being able to sustain higher speeds for maneuvering at low altitudes
Maneuvering burns energy. Higher thrust to weight ratio means you keep more energy while maneuvering. You need energy to maneuver.
I think the minimum distances for engaging targets was translated from the su-27sk flight manual which proves that the R-27ER and R-27R have practically same turn performance right off the rail despite R-27R being lighter.
Acceleration and gained kinetic energy have nothing to do with thrust to weight. An accelerating object gains energy. You know what momentum is correct? Thrust to weight is a non issue. We are talking about missiles whose output is many time it’s weight. The faster an object travels the more energy is required to changes its direction.
When you drive a car, accelerating at 100mph does it turn better if you slow down or continue to accelerate?
Does an accelerating car at 100mph turn better than a car traveling at a solid 50mph?
A large transport truck accelerating at a 100mph. Why can’t it turn unless it slows down?
Because Missiles turn worse at Mach 1 than at mach 2.
You need to accelerate faster to turn stronger until you reach your G limit.
Cars will always turn better at lower speeds unlike missiles. Missiles are launched from mach 1.
And R-27ER is able to output more energy than the R-27R compared to weight.
We’ve shown they were wrong about AMRAAM, AIM-54, and R-27 series. The only thing they are mostly correct about is the drag on the AIM-120C-5 and they found sufficient data to correct their performance of that missile after they had already added it to their game some time ago… not sure if it was corrected or not based on the new data but they are VERY slow to correct things in comparison to War Thunder.
Gaijin’s data for the R-27R/ER is based on primary information the DCS devs do not have access to, I’ve not looked at the DCS data but based on the past experiences I don’t think they should even be mentioned or as a footnote of any kind when discussing real world performance vs war thunder. This isn’t even relevant to this topic and I’m not sure why it was brought up.
Once again certain users are derailing a topic with nonsense (and if I were to guess, no sources)…
Cars use tires to change their direction, missiles use control surfaces.
Control surfaces work best between their optimal speeds instead of always working better at lower speeds. Car tires always work better at lower speeds.
