Bewildering R-77 behaviour

[FlankerFan35]

So, I've been using the 77 for some time now and the longer I use it the more I'm confused and annoyed by it.

All information I can find on it *yes, the initial variant we have in game* point to it being on par with the 120B in every metric but slightly less range while being superior in maneuvering but in all the tests I've done and all the shots I've taken hits or otherwise show large contradictions with what information I've been able to find. 

The missile will regularly struggle to reach reacting targets at all altitudes, often not even reaching the target inside NEZ conditions as well as hemorrhaging between 300-500kts regularly in wild unneeded turns on lightly reacting targets before returning to its original course at speeds too slow to hit a stalling biplane, many times it barely reaches until I'm nearly in range for an R-73 shot at which point I typically choose the R-73 because at least it won't get notched while the 77 is notched or decoyed almost easily as what seems like a sparrow. What's worse is I hear this sentiment echoed by others using this missile and something about and "old missile flight model" yet to be updated?

If anyone has the charts and stats ED uses for the R-77 I'd love to get my hands on them because right now this thing is nowhere near even a 120B and barely up to a S530D, it'd put it somewhere between a 27R and S530D with its only positive attribute being its incredible maneuvering, its commonly being called as "A radar guided R-73."

I'd also like to add I'm aware this variant of the 77 the first and worst variant and that Russia was highly unhappy with it and barely used it before exporting it until the 77-1 arrived sometime later so I'm aware this isn't supposed to be some godly no-energy-losing-unnotchable-360-noscope machine, that said the performance still feels very off and it seems unlikely any exported order would have gone through had it been this poor.

Also, I have no recorded footage as I'm horrible at computers and the replay system messes up what happened by crashing me into hills where I didn't for some reason.

Hope this gets fixed!

[Exorcet]

The AIM-120 is the first missile to be switch over to the new missile API, and it was also the first receive a CFD based flight model. The R-27 has undergone CFD modeling, but the R-77 is just using place holder data until it can be moved over to the API and undergo CFD modeling. This from what I remember anyway. Until the R-77 gets CFD work, expect it to be worse than AMRAAM.

Also note that some people (including me) have requested the AIM-120A be added to provide more options in simulating different scenarios. We may get it at some point.

[FlankerFan35]

18 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The AIM-120 is the first missile to be switch over to the new missile API, and it was also the first receive a CFD based flight model. The R-27 has undergone CFD modeling, but the R-77 is just using place holder data until it can be moved over to the API and undergo CFD modeling. This from what I remember anyway. Until the R-77 gets CFD work, expect it to be worse than AMRAAM.

Also note that some people (including me) have requested the AIM-120A be added to provide more options in simulating different scenarios. We may get it at some point.

Are there any plan outlines, it's insane the only redfor FOX-3 is as useful as a 9B and what about the promised R-73 upgrade? 120 has been updated multiple times but 77 nothing rofl

[Cmptohocah]

You are absolutely right: in-game R-77 is basically an "extended-range, active radar homing R-73" and you will have great satisfaction if you use it as such. Anything else will leave you very disappointed. I usually use it within 16km distance, fire a couple and then get the hell out of there

After an incident I had in MP with 4 R-73s missing a non maneuvering and non countermeasures dispensing target from a distance of 8-5km, I have decided to use the Adders in stead

 

[FlankerFan35]

9 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

You are absolutely right: in-game R-77 is basically an "extended-range, active radar homing R-73" and you will have great satisfaction if you use it as such. Anything else will leave you very disappointed. I usually use it within 16km distance, fire a couple and then get the hell out of there

After an incident I had in MP with 4 R-73s missing a non maneuvering and non countermeasures dispensing target from a distance of 8-5km, I have decided to use the Adders in stead

 

Sadly, I'm pretty sure this will be ignored...again.

[FlankerFan35]

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

R-77 needs a CFD and API rework then it might have better kinematics in some areas. Don't expect it to match 120B in reliability or range though. I too think the current 77 is an excellent dogfighting fox-3. Front aspect within 10km it is very dangerous and the off bore sight capability isn't to be underestimated. I think people expect the wrong things from the missile and try to use them like AMRAAM.

Do correct me if I'm wrong but all the public info I could find gives the 77 an RMAX of 80km but in DCS it struggles greatly and is seen as a miracle if it reaches 40km and often just flips out of control and drops like a rock losing hundreds of knots in 1.5 seconds, when I tested it at 12,500m at Mach 2.2 I reached only 77km max.

Are advertised performance figures reached in this way in real life meaning the RMAX means at high alt and launch speed? if you have any information, please share it as I'd like to learn.

Again, I am aware this was the worst ever 77 variant.

[FlankerFan35]

Just now, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yes, max ranges are generally as high and fast as possible. Again, the 77 in game needs a CFD rework to have any sound comparison.

Ok interesting, is there any info on when 77 CFD update is coming?

[okopanja]

20 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

I asked and they said not soon - some other weapons apparently have priority over it.

Some more info on who, when or best a link please?

[FlankerFan35]

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

I asked and they said not soon - some other weapons apparently have priority over it.

I guess it's their choice but haven't all the other major A2A weapons been updated? (120C, 27ER/ET) especially with it being the ONLY red FOX-3 

Also, can you link thread where they gave you the answer.

Edited August 14, 2022 by FlankerFan35

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Yes, max ranges are generally as high and fast as possible. Again, the 77 in game needs a CFD rework to have any sound comparison.

Not true, at least when it comes to Soviet missiles. They have specific set of parameters for defining max range which I can't remember now, but definitely not "as high" and "as fast" as possible. I think for the Alamo it was 900km/h and 1100km/h respectfully at 10.000m.

[FlankerFan35]

52 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Not true, at least when it comes to Soviet missiles. They have specific set of parameters for defining max range which I can't remember now, but definitely not "as high" and "as fast" as possible. I think for the Alamo it was 900km/h and 1100km/h respectfully at 10.000m.

That would definitely make more sense, chances of firing at mach 2.2 at 13000m in combat not the most likely, lower and slower would simulate combat conditions better. Do you have any article etc on this?

[Cmptohocah]

9 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

That would definitely make more sense, chances of firing at mach 2.2 at 13000m in combat not the most likely, lower and slower would simulate combat conditions better. Do you have any article etc on this?

From DCS Forum:

Edited August 14, 2022 by Cmptohocah

[okopanja]

22 minutes ago, FlankerFan35 said:

That would definitely make more sense, chances of firing at mach 2.2 at 13000m in combat not the most likely, lower and slower would simulate combat conditions better.

Mach 2 is quite doable, and it appears Russians despite large number of hardpoints did fly with lighter loads both in Syria and Ukraine. This indicates potentially higher speeds.

Interesting to note is that Ukraine at least at the beginning of the conflict, armed all hardpoints, which is more in line on how flanker was supposed to fight with  SARHs in the 80s.

No clue what is going now since both sides choose what theh show to the public.

When it comes to ER, I believe some balistic tweaks have been done but not the guidance. E.g. HOJ is incorrect and unusable. Also ER guidance in STT is oddly different to ET guidance: uneven, jerky which leads to great energy loss. In contrast ET has more smooth behavior when fired on the same target.

I thing we should ask ED to confirm what is planned/implemented for each missile and to provise defiite mini-roadmap.

[FlankerFan35]

2 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

From DCS Forum:

 

Cool thanks.

Is our ER modeled to this?

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

ER has midcourse, ET doesnt. ET is lock, fire and forget. 

I spent significant time trying to make ER/ET/77 work better for me in DCS, so I am well aware of what is modeled in DCS.

In DCS, to my best knowledge, there are no midcourse for ER as with AMRAAM, there is only STT lock and what missiles is able to see through it.

As for what I am talking about: the AoA/G diagrams (these 2 things tell you if missiles makes rapid shifts in trajectory) of ET which relies solely on what seeker sees and has continuous lock, has way smoother PN guidance (to be clear: I am not talking about ET that acquired the target later). I am not sure off course, but I think this also contributes to lower performance of ER. Likely something similar may occur with others. 77/AMRAAM should be checked as well for this.

You can check it yourself with tacview if you do not believe me. At this moment I can not run reliable tests with keyboard only to provide diagrams here, so anyone wishing to test may simply place a player and a single target in mission, and fire ER and then ET afterwards.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by okopanja

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

I spent significant time trying to make ER/ET/77 work better for me in DCS, so I am well aware of what is modeled in DCS.

In DCS, to my best knowledge, there are no midcourse for ER as with AMRAAM, there is only STT lock and what missiles is able to see through it.

As for what I am talking about: the AoA/G diagrams (these 2 things tell you if missiles makes rapid shifts in trajectory) of ET which relies solely on what seeker sees and has continuous lock, has way smoother PN guidance (to be clear: I am not talking about ET that acquired the target later). I am not sure off course, but I think this also contributes to lower performance of ER. Likely something similar may occur with others. 77/AMRAAM should be checked as well for this.

You can check it yourself with tacview if you do not believe me. At this moment I can not run reliable tests with keyboard only to provide diagrams here, so anyone wishing to test may simply place a player and a single target in mission, and fire ER and then ET afterwards.

I think he meant to say that in RL ER get's mid-course guidance via M-link, and ET does not, which is true.

As per RL practise, you would fire the ET first as there is possibilty of the IR seeker switching to the ER's heat signature.

2 hours ago, FlankerFan35 said:

Cool thanks.

Is our ER modeled to this?

Nope, they used some simulator to get the data which has the ER's range shorter of that from the hand-written diagram. Not much, but still shorter.

[okopanja]

7 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

I think he meant to say that in RL ER get's mid-course guidance via M-link, and ET does not, which is true.

As per RL practise, you would fire the ET first as there is possibilty of the IR seeker switching to the ER's heat signature.

I am pretty sure he meant IRL as well, hence I started my line with: "In DCS".

So there is some discrepancy in what is IRL and what is in DCS. E.g. for M-link we would need INS, and I am pretty sure its not in the DCS. Present implementation shows missile able to orient itself initially on launch, but this can be done even without sophisticated INS.

[Cmptohocah]

Just now, okopanja said:

I am pretty sure he meant IRL as well, hence I started my line with: "In DCS".

So there is some discrepancy in what is IRL and what is in DCS. E.g. for M-link we would need INS, and I am pretty sure its not in the DCS. Present implementation shows missile able to orient itself initially on launch, but this can be done even without sophisticated INS.

My bad, I probably did not read your post carefully

Missile should have mid-course guidance for the 80% of the total flight, after which it should home in using its seeker. I have no idea how much of this happens in DCS though.

[Ironhand]

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Also ER guidance in STT is oddly different to ET guidance: uneven, jerky which leads to great energy loss. In contrast ET has more smooth behavior when fired on the same target.

 

6 hours ago, okopanja said:

As for what I am talking about: the AoA/G diagrams (these 2 things tell you if missiles makes rapid shifts in trajectory) of ET which relies solely on what seeker sees and has continuous lock, has way smoother PN guidance (to be clear: I am not talking about ET that acquired the target later). I am not sure off course, but I think this also contributes to lower performance of ER.

The ET was launched first and reached the target prior to the -ER. So what is the difference supposed to be between the two?

 

[Avimimus]

5 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

I think he meant to say that in RL ER get's mid-course guidance via M-link, and ET does not, which is true.

As per RL practise, you would fire the ET first as there is possibilty of the IR seeker switching to the ER's heat signature.

Interesting - so the opposite of what we tend to do in DCS: Firing off the R/ER to get the opponent to go defensive, and then launching the ET once they've shown tail or afterburner!

I do hope the IR rework they are doing eventually extends to the missile seekers.

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Ironhand said:

The ET was launched first and reached the target prior to the -ER. So what is the difference supposed to be between the two?

 

Interesting, this is in SP?

My 2 cases were in MP on GS server. My latency was 120ms. I will try to replicate this again. I had strong spikes in graph for ER during whole flight, while ET flying at the same time had no spikes.

Edited August 15, 2022 by okopanja

[Ironhand]

7 hours ago, okopanja said:

Interesting, this is in SP?…

 

Yes. SP. There are too many unknown variables introduced in MP.

[Ironhand]

Just for comparison, here is a 58 km R-27ER shot. Similar look to the shorter one in my previous post. Again, SP.

 

 

So, if the -ERs behave differently online, then it's probably not the missile itself but rather, the interaction of the missile with either the target or something else.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Ironhand

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Yes. SP. There are too many unknown variables introduced in MP.

Well, I noticed this several releases ago, and I used servet side tacview. The difference between ER and ET was  huge. Back then I did not bother to report, since trk files are simply huge. I will download later one of the latest tacviews and check ig someone fired ER/ET on the same target.

[Ironhand]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

Well, I noticed this several releases ago, and I used servet side tacview. The difference between ER and ET was  huge. Back then I did not bother to report, since trk files are simply huge. I will download later one of the latest tacviews and check ig someone fired ER/ET on the same target.

The best way to test would probably be to set up a server with two slots and run the scenarios. That way you can run tests with more precise profiles. Might be easier to figure out what causes what. TRK files would also be manageable.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Ironhand