At this point you’ve known my methods for nearly a year. Creating a mission with an AI that spawns “x” distance from you traveling at whatever speed and altitude is easy enough. Making the custom missile file is as easy as copy pasting the R-27 data with the numbers modified to reflect the R-77s attributes.
I’ve been asking others to join me and do their own testing for quite some time, let’s not pretend me being unwilling to do your dog and pony show is anything but me being unwilling to further waste my time with you.
In-game R-77 appears almost identical to my model, but the in-game value has ~10 more m/s deltaV due to them rounding up to 23,000 newtons of thrust flat.
I estimated a CxK value of 2.3 - 3.3 and in-game it is 1.85. This is a much more realistic value imo, but I gave the naysayers too much benefit of the doubt and increased the drag much too high for my model. The performance will be much better than the AIM-120 imo, especially as they have modeled it with lofting.
Both, my models were overly favorable towards the AIM-120 and overly doubtful for the R-77, though in regards to my estimates. In-game the R-77 is clearly superior imo.
Someone said the model is the R-77-1 but the data is Representative of the standard R-77 / RVV-AE models. The drag is lower, which may indicate some hybrid between the longer body of the -1 and the motor of the standard R-77.
Then it should also have accurate naming too, lol. If it was officially acknowledged to be R-77-1, then a vast majority of the community would want to have AIM-120C-5 (whatever variant got a motor upgrade).
All ARHs look pretty much like c&p of each other, especially seekers and controls parameters. This test feels more like for gameplay testing rather than missiles tests themselves.
