I’ll amend it when your arguments aren’t such a joke.
3 Likes
You demand things and expect honest discussion but you had the intention of being coy from the beginning.
Demanding that you actually show the evidence is something you are doing right now to others. And like, if you want to show me what for, then just show your stuff lol! If you had done so instead of playing these stupid games I would actually look over-aggressive.
2 Likes
I can’t do the testing until the methods are published, if they do not wish to share the datapoints from which we are comparing you are obligated to continue trusting me… which you’ve said is your issue the entire time. You want me to “prove” things and I can’t do so until they feel the need to share their datapoint.
I’m not the one playing games, you’re just trying to slander someone who is taking honest criticism and doing real testing when no one else is.
Post this test! Post any test! You are making claims about what range R-77 gets with your tests, so show us the evidence! If you are better, demonstrate it! Put pressure by providing the means to actually incorporate their source!
4 Likes
I’ve already demonstrated these tests in the past, again… what would you prefer? The model with the same coefficient as the AIM-7F? Double it? It’s not like I kept video recordings of each and every test or uploaded every one to youtube. It is a lot of effort for a dog and pony show just so you can shift your goalpost once more.
I have provided multiple specific requests and you have dissembled endlessly. The shape of what I want should be extremely clear at this point; I want your specific results, that is whatever data leads you to make the claims that the R-77 has a greater than 80km range, and that CxK has the effects of a drag coefficient, and I want your methods, the mission file and testing procedures you use to generate that data.
This is the standard of any sort of experimental research and for good reason, it allows for shared verification and demonstrating truth.
6 Likes
Where can i download your mission file with the aim 120 and r77?
1 Like
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.
Okay well I’m done here. Clearly you are not going to share your stuff no matter what, so w/e.
4 Likes
What were the values of the R-27 you modified? I copied flareflos missile formula and could make some graphs of it.
1 Like
Remind me and tonight I’ll share a couple of variations for you to test.
1 Like
Who knows how to connect a non-professional GPU to calculations in Ansys 2023R1?
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
Relative to in game or expected values?
Is there solid evidence enough to report this? Or do we wonder if this is a -1 in disguise
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.
As it stands yes because R-77 potentially incorrectly lofts and AIM-120 underperforms significantly in a few areas.
As stated earlier, the R-77 was superior with higher drag and no lofting from my models as well.
By visual model it’s R-77-1
3 Likes