yes, which doesnt mention 74 km? it’s 82km
Under a slightly different scenario, yes. The maximum DLZ for subsonic launch of the Harrier is 40nm or 74km but you already knew that. Let’s stop pretending you don’t know what I’m talking about and have an honest conversation.
thats an LSZ upper band, thats like assuming the AOA indicator max shows the max AOA pull, anyway.
“We know the R-77 to have 80km range under similar circumstances to the AIM-120A’s 74km figure”
what circumstances are this 74km figure then? if you said its not actual a circumstance and actually just an indicator.
3 Likes
Let’s not assume anything, as I said we can be honest. Share the 82km source and I’ll share a test of the R-77 later using the same drag coefficient as the AIM-7F as a baseline. Modifying that I’ll increase the drag coefficient until it cannot match the AIM-120 and we can decide what exact coefficient you feel is best suited for the design.
It has been shared with you.
As I said, let’s be honest and share the more up-to-date information for everyone.
Does the less than or equal to symbol mean something different in Russian then?
Given that drag co-efficient in war thunder is a completely arbitrary number which:
doesn’t need to match any reference, it is chosen to allow developers easy manipulate with it
I wouldn’t read too much into that.
Also you seem to have a large amount of uncertainty with your R-77 stats:
What values did you use for your test?
4 Likes
There are other considerations precluding further shots for the MiG-29 types such as datalink or informational limitations… or the document is just not accurate. There are plenty of documents within the DoD that state incorrect information.
It’s not entirely arbitrary, only that it won’t match 1:1 with reality since it is an integer that is used in conjunction with caliber in the files to determine the drag applied by the game engine. That’s why I suggest we find something you like for comparison as I did before. We can reference the AIM-7F drag coefficient as baseline since it is the same caliber and then modify it from there.
I’ve tested combinations, burn time and thrust vary based on altitude. For war thunders purposes they tend to match rear aspect launch conditions at 3-5km alt… I’d select a medium of your choice. What will satisfy you?
Don’t forget to switch the impulse to 236s and not 250s…
We already went over this and my estimate of 250s didn’t reflect my model. The model already had the lower impulse.
The numbers given already are the numbers plugged.
I am not so sure that CxK is actually a direct drag coefficient. Like Mig-23M tries to ignore this, but his own testing shows even large variations having small impacts on time of flight. Directly halving/doubling drag should have huge impact on flight time, but it doesn’t.
4 Likes
You’re just gonna ignore that there was an error in my testing - the changes were insignificant at the time but later testing showed greater changes. I think for some reason when I updated the file the entire game client needed to be restarted. What I did find was that small variations in pitch during launch caused larger deviations in time to target than expected so to streamline testing procedures in the future I essentially launched from the exact same “pitch” angle so the missiles didn’t manually loft more than others tests.
In any case, the CxK is NOT a direct drag coefficient… it is linked to caliber as I stated already. I have offered for y’all to make suggestions as to how I could alter my testing procedures and instead of helping validify the model you spat in my face and ran amuck acting as though it’s a personal issue and not a forum from which to deliberate truth.
I wouldn’t ignore it if you actually posted those results! All I know is that you said at the time that it didn’t make a difference! Have you at any point actually posted your tests, rather than just results that line up with what you clearly want to be true?
You don’t understand what I mean by CxK being a direct drag coefficient, what I mean is that it would directly multiply the final drag force. Being linked to caliber wouldn’t be too unusual for such a coeffient. I spit in your face because I do not think you want the truth. I think you are willing to lie and misinterpret information when it supports your preconceived ideas. I have watched you do it, and do worse besides.
Still, if you post actual evidence I will debate you on those merits.
For my part, just post everything. Like take all your results and post them in an excel file, with replays of your procedure and the mission so we can verify it. This whole “I test various things, here’s my result” is innately untrustworthy because you could give the means to verify your results but AFAICT, you deliberately have not.
4 Likes
If you’d like me to upload them, I can. I have in the past but it’s a lot of work if there are a lot of tests that need to be run, so if you’d like to actually discuss the parameters… We can run tests. The entire point is to validate the model against known data points so while the skepticism is welcomed you could certainly be less hostile about your discussion methodology.
You spit because you don’t want the truth, I’ve done everything I can to validate the models honestly and against the best sources. I’m open to the criticism and when I reply with my thoughts people tend to get offended. In the end, what I think doesn’t matter if the model doesn’t follow suit so let’s stop throwing shade back and forth and focus on making sure the model is accurate.
If you don’t trust me or think it’s not proper testing you are absolutely welcome to do your own and share the results as well.
That’s interesting, I think the same for you.
You want me to post my test results but you can’t answer my questions… What do you want me to show? What should we modify? What drag coefficients and thrust, burn time, etc makes the most sense for you? Even when I did post results in the past they went straight to dismissing them as invalid just because they don’t align with THEIR preconceived notions…
Okay, I am going to be very clear with you. This is not a collaboration. I am not going to play some game where you demand I provide you with parameters for this that and the other thing before you will actually share the evidence you are claiming. Provide the mission file you use for testing, with whatever parameters you are using to represent the AIM-120 and R-77. Provide the procedure you were using for tests, and whatever data that gives you the basis for your claims.
If you are going to basically do original research, you need to do it like actual research, which means making it possible for us to validate it. That means providing methods and the resulting data. You are the one making a positive claim here.
4 Likes
I’m defending something I already tested and y’all showed up to refute it once again and we have new data for the AIM-120 to test the R-77 against for comparisons. We can’t go ahead and do these comparisons until you tell me what you think is fair because I’m not gonna do the horse and pony show. I’m not wasting HOURS of my time (that I’ve already done and verified for myself) just so you can once again make some wild conclusion that you feel will invalidate the results… Sending me on yet another wild goose chase.
If you want something very specific I can provide you the tools to validate it yourself but we need to decide on what shall be tested. When the others share publicly their AMRAAM launch conditions we can discuss. If they don’t want to share the most up to date information for comparison, it is pointless.
This is truly absurd. You have posted your testing nowhere I can find it, and yet you expect it to just be the decisive evidence, sight unseen? Your complaint is that if you reveal your evidence, we will what, find flaws in it? Surely if it is so good, it will speak for itself, or at least back up your position. If it is flawed, then you should want to know, because you want to find the truth, right? Which requires admitting that you could be wrong.
I am again not playing some game where you hold your processes secret without preconditions on its use. Post the mission files or shut up. I don’t care about your disagreement with some other poster, and I’m not going to refuse to share any testing I do because of them.
4 Likes
Again, new AMRAAM datapoints were found. The point of comparison was against the AMRAAM, so I’ll test the R-77 against them in the new scenarios. If @Flame2512 and @Gunjob would like to share the 82km figure I’ll use it. Until then, not my source to share.
From there as I said, I plan on testing with AIM-7F drag coefficient as a base and then modify it to whatever coefficient we end up deciding is more favorable. If anyone has questions or concerns about the rest of the data such as thrust or burn time please provide suggestions and criticism… The data is in the OP for my threads. If it needs to be more clear you’re welcome to ask, but the hostile nature in which you choose to discuss isn’t welcome and I highly suggest you amend it.
I do have a question and its a rather simple one. Why?
Why are you wasting your time and everyone else’s with this? We know for a fact Gaijin will model both the R77 and 120 however they see fit. There have been accepted and unactioned bug reports on the 9L, 7F/M, Magics and etc. for 4 years now. You opinions (and everyone else’s for that matter) are completely irrelevant. Due to the fact both missiles are still classified there is even less of a chance that any of us will have any input on missile balancing. Your tests aren’t worth anything since 1) The Devs won’t ever look at them; and 2) Are based on guesstimate numbers from the few publicly available sources.
2 Likes
I actually have some pretty good reasoning for it, but I won’t share it here. If you’re curious feel free to message me on discord.