2 Likes
R-77 is confirmed for next update. Here is the in-game stat card for the missile.
It received a major buff with reduced drag and increased thrust as well.
2 Likes
Are you talking about the base R-77? Or the -1? Also where is this info this sounds very good.
Yea, a substantial buff overall. Although it does not have the quick acceleration of the booster now.
Prop navigation constant has also been changed, let’s see how that affects it.
Alternatively, all the changes for dev can be viewed here: GitHub - gszabi99/War-Thunder-Datamine: Frequently updated War Thunder Datamine repository
2 Likes
Honestly, I just want you all to know that now, if ever is the time to try to push for some changes regarding the missile, it’s now.
I have PMed a technical moderator myself, asking how the R-77 & R-77-1 is currently modeled in-game/how Gaijin understands the drag on the missile, especially in regards to the lattices. This is so that we can actually have an idea of how they think the missile should be performing. Or, if they intentionally/knowingly have not made the FM as it should be as a “temporary” stop-gap.
This idea came to mind mostly from recalling how the Flanker model was actually the T-10 prototype, and Gaijin hadn’t realized that. Now, I don’t wanna propose spamming technical mods with mail; but if I don’t get a reply in the coming days I’ll be sure to let you guys know so you can help out with it. In the mean time, we should just gather as much tangible evidence as possible, so we can present it in a proper manner.
I downloaded the sources @BBCRF linked earlier, or well, indexed them so I can download them later online. They are in Russian however, so translating them and going through them is gonna take a bit for me personally. For those curious what he posted earlier, here are the translations of the text:
Books in Question
1. РЕШЕТЧАТЫЕ КРЫЛЬЯ = Lattice wings
- РЕШЕТЧАТЫЕ КРЫЛЬЯ В РАКЕТОСТРОЕНИИ, КОСМОНАВТИКЕ, АВИАЦИИ = Lattice wings in rocket science, astronautics, aviation
But I want to ask, @MiG_23M has the contents of the sources been discussed here earlier? (I want to make sure) I’d presume so. I’m just wondering if I should spend my time going through the hoops of making the information digestible for myself as a person who doesn’t speak Russian at the moment (it’s obvious I should do so later) – just that if we compile evidence in preparation of “debunking” what Gaijin says about the missile (which it clearly, is wrong) that should I instead:
- Look for the posts here discussing those books and their contents
- Or make it a priority to make the source itself digestible for myself
Either way, now is our chance, so we need to grasp it. I’ll keep you all updated on the message line between technical moderators.
2 Likes
We asked before and they simply did not respond. In other topics and about other things they outright refused to discuss their sources.
When they fix the initial R-77 model so that it is not the same as R-77-1 I will consider that the minimum effort requirement on their part for me to care or try to get involved. For now @BBCRF is sharing CFD information for the missile here as courtesy - but it is not for this game in particular.
2 Likes
Here the calculation I talked about.
spoiler
The Diff aceleration is the differential of the acceleration in each point in regard to speed. This means that you have a measure of how much the aceleration changes by variations in speed at each second.
In my previous aproach I didn’t calculated the change of speed, only the total speed, and thus I’ve obtained broken values and a convergence, as you can see in the graphs of low mach numbers; the orange line sudenly collapsed.
The altitude contribution can be seen on the that curve. It seems like that it is greater than the speed contribution to the de-acceleration, as the value slowly increases while speed decreases.
The drag has a wave like form. It goes up in a steep angle and then gradually reduces as mach numbers increases. I believe that a function which aproximates this curve can’t vanish under any order of differentials. That means that in the graph, the non-linear drag coefficient will always be visible. You can see that comparing the lattice fins drag curve on low mach numbers to the speed graphs I made: where the should be the grestest decrease and increase of drag acceleration the 1st Diff Acceleration seems more like a constant.
Spoiler
Overlaid Aim-120 red and R-77 green charts
Spoiler
For the AiM-120, flight speeds of 620 m/s for the R-77 are not known. But let’s assume 600 m/s
1 Like
The initial message seemingly hasn’t gotten a reply yet. I have sent out some more messages to other technical moderators. We will see what happens to those.
1 Like
MatAWG was comparing the performance based on the datamined value for the missiles using this. As you see, the planar fins AIM-120B and lattice fins R-77 and R-77-1 have the same drag curve shape, just the magnitude is different.
Using the speed graph as a comparison, easily we can estimate that if the R-77 speed loss was reduced in 30%, it would have the energy advantage for 15 or 20 seconds.
The Drag graph is not correct
How so? The shape of the curve is wrong?
yep
It seems like Gaijin doesn’t account for the non-linearity on the drag coefficient of the lattice fins. That “estimated slope” is a averaged out curve to represent what the drag acceleration differential would look like.
The zero yaw drag should be visible in the low mach numbers graph in this estimated slope if the the R-77 had a non-linear drag modelled, but it just aproximates a straight line: a linear function.
Spoiler
@Busheedoh do you think this is the evidence we need? I can refine even more these results and do other tests to gather more data if it isn’t enough.
2 Likes
The developers themselves commented and said they would not model the grid fins unique drag characteristics above but you guys claim to have read the thread so I had assumed you’d seen that already.
Okay. Smin of all people gave me a response on the matter, and it seems that the way we do this is by making a report. Which I guess makes sense? But at the same time makes getting information on the situation a bit tricky.
I guess we have to go through the necessary hoops of bureaucracy to get the developers to comment on the subject.
So, I propose we make a report with the intention of “probing” an answer from the developers on the subject. It shouldn’t be treated as the final report, but one that may get the developers to comment on the subject – so that we may then, on that information, make a more informed and finalized report.
@k_stepanovich I would like to inquire- does the R-77 have the unique wave drag characteristic for grid fins modeled? If not, is it something we should report?
1 Like
Or, we do that. Tbh, I was kind of wondering if you can just ping a developer in a thread to ask it, but if you can, then yeah, that works.