FoxAlfa

I did another test, compared HUD data from a youtube of a Real Life with the DCS hud. There are some errors in the height and speed of me, but the target is spot on. The Missile is R-27r I must admit I am a bit baffled. Firstly I think the hud calculation in the game is good, it works good enough for all missiles. So the flight profile for the R-27r seems incorrect in the game. In RL it has a bigger lethal range 8km vs 4 km range, but a smaller range against a non-maneuvering target 15km vs 23 km. I there are a lot of ways that missile could have to achieve this, per example less speed loss during a maneuver giving her bigger lethal arc but bigger drag reducing the overall range or longer sustain of an engine but lower max speed or stronger missile parameters but a hard time cut of due to power loss or earlier stall.... lot of options... and like I said I am baffled.... GGTharos, any ideas, what do you think would reproduce these Real Life parameters?

It means since the sight will move in the model, they need to align the new sight position and the cannon position in the code so it would remain accurate... simply put align sights

True, Robert Hierl clearly said the "hear the tone"...

Excellent news!! Thank you for the update...the Corsair is looking hella good!!! Btw will we get the SPO-10 update for the MIG-21?

I recommend researching Jordan Peterson.... good reading...

The problem I have is not the manuals or charts, its how people communicate... There is a big difference between "thank you for the all the hard work we really do appreciate, but could you improve this because this and this..." and "this is s*it... nobody buy this...add another toxic remark...bla bla bla"... or "they got that that pixel wrong, its not finished..." we all in the community are getting petty and toxic... and that is not going to do wonders for the motivation of any team... again its the small teams are spending a lot of time to bring you a product for a relatively small amount of money, nobody is going to buy a Ferrari out of this..., not a hundreds of engineers, in a faceless corporation with the millions of dollars budget to make it... we as a community with the average age of 35 should really grow up and learn to communicate with dignity and respect and appreciate hard work and give constructive feedback, not act out every little frustration. Again I am not calling out anybody in particular, I only feel we all should work toghter and to make sure that we don't turn in to those "bastards" from the quote.

I don't speak Russian, I speak Serbo-Croatian... completely different language... and all we ever asked is for ED to comment, unfortunately, you seem to be applying for the position of their lawyer... in the end, if somebody can explain where my logic of the Conclusion 2 is wrong: "And in the end, if we take into account that R-27R bleeds much more speed in turn that R-73 the effective range difference for a maneuvering target between them becomes neglectable. And these missiles were developed at the same time for the same planes. I can't image a Soviet rocket Scientist going to a Military Officer and saying well it will have maybe 20% bigger range if you are above the 5000m and if the target doesn't turn and if the radar doesn't drop a lock and it will cost more and you can only have two on your Front line fighter since it is 2.5 times heavier with all the added cost of logistics and maintenance... and the Officer goes, yes please, give me those 20% please... It doesn't pass the common sense test..." I would be happy.

Ingame DCS data on 20/01/2019 of R-27ER... aerodynamic range ~ 21km... target travel with 1100km/h in that time ~12km, so all in all 33km... An image you provided for the real-life Flanker manual... Agh 39km, those silly Russians are telling their pilots to fire the missiles 6 km too early.... we must let them correct the manual since you are correct.

And seeing the MiG-19 progress only makes me want the MiG-23 more!!! Can't wait...

Looking good, can't wait!!!

Ok, this is my last post, since this is getting pointless... I am trying to prove that something wrong and needs another look, you are trying to prove that everything is correct. We must agree that my bar is much lower than yours. Let's start here with the calculation... 6 * 11.3 kg... gives 67.8 kg... not 60kg... 3 * 31.9 + 7 * 6.32 = 95.7 + 44.24 = 139.94kg not 135kg... in the game the missile burns for 12 sec and not 10 sec... so still haven't account for those 2 secs... if we use your total impulse of both missiles and calculate velocity change of both missiles according to their mass, the velocity change difference is ~30% not over 50% like in-game performance... in the end I think the bar for something is wrong is met... I still remain with my two conclusions based on manuals, in-game data and calculation... and they are R-27ER is in the ballpark but could use a small range extension based on the flight manual data... the R-27r is underperforming by around 20-30% in range...

Ok, I am giving up, you are correct. Since getting 270kg worth of the propltion of a 135kg propellant looks correct to you, it must be correct to me too... and thank you for derailing the topic...

You can not fit a 4l of Cola in a 2l bottle, no matter if you pour it drop by drop all teleport it all at once...

The efficiency of the rocket is gauged by the Specific Impuls, and the range for all the rockets is around ~250 to ~350 at sea level for all rockets humanity ever created, it can not account for the difference off 2 times. If flight manuals, in-game data, and even high schools physics, says something is wrong.... something is wrong. And I don't think its done on purpose or with bad faith, on the contrary, the DCS is phenomenal and I can't believe that we are getting this kind of fidelity and I much appreciate the work ED has put in it. I only think that some of the stats got outdated as the sim progressed and need another look.

Ok, now for the math, the R-27R weights 253 kg, R-27ER weights 350 kg, aerodynamic they are quite similar only the small diameter change on the R-27ER and the additional lateral due to length but I won't take that in an account. To accelerate the R-27R to 2800 kmh from 1100 kmh in 4 seconds as per graph it will need an acceleration of 118.06 m/s*s using a net force 29869.2 N The R-27ER acceleration to 3500 kmh from 1100 kmh in 2 seconds as per graph it will need an acceleration of 347.2 m/s*s using a net force 121520 N The specific impulse between the R-27R and R-27ER is close since of the diameter of the nozzle limiting the flow and both missiles are flying in the atmosphere. Basically what you are saying is that in the 2 times the propellant you would have to store 4 times the energy and provide 4 times amount of thrust and delivery 4 times the acceleration to achieve those stats. And that doesn't seem possible in my book. The data was the same before for Aim-120, R-77, AiM-7 but they got updated and their performance changed. The R-27 was left in the old format and now it shows a lot, and the only thing few of us here are asking is for ED to take a look at the R-27 since now it look, feels and performs odd comparing to the other missiles.

Ok, you are saying that R-27R as is, passes my common sense test in your opinion?

Come on, you can do better than that... go play Kerbal Space Program a bit... maxing out DeltaV isn't just get a bigger rocket... Please provide the data and the charts since you were asking for them.

Ok, I have two conclusions based on these results. Conclusion 1: The DCS R-27ER when its speed reaches 800 km/h (around the missile stall speed) it would reach the range of ~18km at 1000m and ~21 km at 5000m in around ~40 sec. the plane traveling 1100 kmh would travel a ~12km. So all in all the engagement range would be 30 km at 1000m and 33 km at 5000m If we compared the engagement range of the R-27ER to the one provided by GGTharos from the Sukhoi manual and our charts that give us the range of 29 km at 1000m and 39 at 5000m. We can see that the missile is in the ballpark at 1000m but around 6km off on 5000m. I think the R-27ER only needs small tweaks Conclusion 2: The performance of the R-27r is a bit odd. Its graphs (burn time, speed, range...) have much more in common with the R-73 than R-27ER. It's performance often is more the 50% off the R-27ER which is hard to account for by just a bigger rocket engine. And in the end, if we take into account that R-27R bleeds much more speed in turn that R-73 the effective range difference for a maneuvering target between them becomes neglectable. And these missiles were developed at the same time for the same planes. I can't image a Soviet rocket Scientist going to a Military Officer and saying well it will have maybe 20% bigger range if you are above the 5000m and if the target doesn't turn and if the radar doesn't drop a lock and it will cost more and you can only have two on your Front line fighter since it is 2.5 times heavier with all the added cost of logistics and maintenance... and the Officer goes, yes please, give me those 20% please... It doesn't pass the common sense test... To conclude I think the R-27r is underperforming and it needs another look from the ED.

Ok, I did some testing and wanted to post them here. I will post my conclusion in post after this. THE TEST PARAMETERS: the launch of the R-27R, R-27ER, and R-73 in parallel at 1000m and 5000m, default weather setting over the PG on a non-maneuvering target. *I didn't do the 10000m one since only the gap would only raise proportionally THE TEST CHARTS: 1000m R-73 R-27R R-27ER 5000m R-73 R-27R R-27ER Red line shows the range reached when the missile speed drops to 1500kmh 1000: R-73 ~6 km R-27R ~8 km R-27ER ~17 km 5000: R-73 ~8 km R-27R ~11.5 km R-27ER ~24 km THE TEST RESULTS: -Both R-27R and R-73 burn for around 6 sec, while R-27ER burns for 12 sec. -Both R-27R and R-73 reach the same speed at the same time and then start to slow down. -The R-27R reaches only 3000kmh in 4 seconds, the R-27ER reaches 3000kmh in 2 seconds even dough it is a much heavier missile with the similar rocket engine.

Can we have TacView at sea level of Aim-9X, R-27r, and Mistral fired at the target at 5km... let's take bets which one will have the best odds and will first hit the target... Stinger in the game feels natural, Mistral like a Rail Gun... has than ED got all of their missiles that wrong then?

Honestly, I am expecting the Razbam team to do a Mig-25 or Su-17 after the 23... it makes a lot of dev sense since the big reuse of the systems and instruments, and that team obviously has a knack for Soviet planes.

Judging the on the performance of the Yugoslav military in the 90's it could be :D :D :D But joking aside, I don't think they would run a military secret flight manual though Google Translate ;)

You have a habit of over-engineering everything I can tell. Here you are comparing JHMCS to a ШЛЕМ in MiG-29. it is not that sophisticated, probably more just 'ballpark' calculations, that is why it still needs a terminal phase and guidance on the missile. The point that they are done in the plane and not the missile. Ok, this is lost in my translation, Upravljanje is more of a command, it presumes the involvement of a side and not just overwatch or setup. Other Serbo-Croatian speakers can back me up on this. You are correct, my fast translation mistake. I agree on this also, but currently, R-27r is underperforming in my humble opinion that could be very wrong. It has happened due to updates of other missiles, that is why it needs another look. Again it is my opinion but my experience tells me if many people feel that something is wrong it usually is. Again don't presume that the Soviet tech is an 'ORK' tech, it can be quite sophisticated even if simple, RD-180 and ШЛЕМ is a good example of that. it not the same way of thinking and engineering as in the west.

That is where you are wrong, nothing is lost in translation, it is my mother tough. The aircraft is doing the corrections if it was just sending the data the wording would be completely different. In a way, it echoes the Soviet philosophy of GCI leading the plane to the target, instead of a self-sufficient plane and missile philosophy in the west. Also part of the manual about the digital computer, clearly states it is handling the tasks secondary calculation of radar signals, radar control, the connection of aiming devices(HUD) and the radar and handles the tasks of weapon control and usage. If it just relying the data captured by the radar, and since it is sent using side arrays of the radar, there wouldn't be any need to put it through the digital computer, and it wouldn't need to do any tasks of weapon control. On that, I do agree. My opinion and I could be wrong is that R-27 is far more complex than currently modeled and it didn't show till the Aim-7 and Aim-120 got updated. And Aim-7 and Aim-120 update were warranted by the Hornet development which makes financial sense. The R-77 update is just a by-product of that update. It will be much more clear how good or bad the R-27r when we get MiG-23ML and R-24s complex gets full modeled. And we will have the full ED picture only when if we ever, get a full-fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=202133&stc=1&d=1547496517

Unfortunately, it is hard to tell, only a single part and it that goes like this: "Missile R-27 has a semi-active radar head for self-guidance (RGS) which uses quazinterupdet method of target marking with the help of RLPK. In RGS the guidance of the missile is by an inertial method with radio-correction without radar head tracking the target up to 70% of the distance. Signals for corrections are sent by side arrays of the radar. On the end flight path of the missile, the target is illuminated by the radar head for self-tracking and semi-active self-guidance". What is the inertial method and how the radio-correction is calculated it is not clear, I need to dig deeper. But it is clear that the plane is doing the corrections and not just relaying the data. https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=202124&stc=1&d=1547491344