How close is 1.1 demo AAM performance to 1.1 rel? WARN Imag

[D-Scythe]

Deathangel, this thread was never an AIM-120 vs. R-77 thread. Before you chimed in, the only thing we said in terms of AIM-120 vs. R-77 was that A, the AIM-120 should have less drag and more energy in the end game than it currently does in Lock On (and maybe slightly more than the R-77), and B, that there is no reason to believe that either the AIM-120 or the R-77 performs much better than the other in terms of electronics/decoy rejection, which in the game, the R-77 does perform *that* much better than the AIM-120.

 

And there is no way that you can dispute either point; for the A, there is only so much propellent you can put into the R-77's airframe, which is roughly the same size as the AIM-120s, so unless the R-77 features some anti-gravity device that enables to to fly further, there is no reason to believe that the effective range of the R-77 is twice that of the AIM-120s. And for B, the public (ie. us) are clueless about the real things so this is the best generalization we can make to make the game balanced.

 

Your post is confrontational and counter-productive.

[GGTharos]

D-Scythe, I don't know if you've tried minizap, but using that to check the R-77 vs. the AIM-120 range out, the R-77 underperforms by just a few percept (in terms of arriving on target with the same velocity) ...

 

Just FYI since I think you'd find this interesting.

 

But, teh R-77 is said to have ludicrous maneuvering capability against the target aircraft -if- it does arrive with good velocity due to its control surface design (the lattice fins)

 

Of course, a violent maneuver when youv'e got no thrust will jsut drop you out of the sky, which is probably whyt he E-version's being built, so that the 77 can arrive with suffiicient speed at longer ranges.

 

The only thing that could make a difference (Assuming Sk's modelling of these missiles is correct, and there's no reason to believe otherwise) is what I think is the most unkown factor, that being the specific impulse of each rocket engine, which could make a difference by acceleratign the missile faster and to a higher speed.

 

Also, teh R-77 is, IIRC about 50 kilos heavier than an AMRAAM which means the same rocket would make the 120 go a bit farther in some cases (more acceleration, more speed but potentially slightly faster slow-down due to drag, too)

[Kula66]

Gents,

While the 120 v 77 debate is interesting - it always ends up with my Dads toys are better than you Dads toys (and we will never know the real answer ... ), my concern is that despite improved range ... the 120 is now a lemon, easily out turned and even truning the wrong way in the end game ... its just broken! Even firing between 12-15miles, previously lethal range, it is simply dodged. Can someone (someone in the know) let us know what has changed to make it so poor? Or are other people seeing different things?

 

Anyone tried the Sparrow?

 

James

[SwingKid]

BTW, SK ... about the guy who said missiles slow down faster ... I heard somewhere that missiles rotate in flight along their length. Is this is so, then the control surfaces could cause the slow-down you're missing.

 

What a place to bury a message to me... I'm not even in this discussion! :)

 

Actually most missiles don't work if they start rolling, it messes up the autopilot gyros. The AIM-9 has "rollerons" to keep it steady for example. The Python-V I think is the only missile that allows the control surfaces to roll around the body axis, but the seeker is still kept upright. Unguided rockets usually spin OTOH, maybe this is what you heard.

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

BTW, SK ... about the guy who said missiles slow down faster ... I heard somewhere that missiles rotate in flight along their length. Is this is so, then the control surfaces could cause the slow-down you're missing.

 

What a place to bury a message to me... I'm not even in this discussion! :)

 

Actually most missiles don't work if they start rolling, it messes up the autopilot gyros. The AIM-9 has "rollerons" to keep it steady for example. The Python-V I think is the only missile that allows the control surfaces to roll around the body axis, but the seeker is still kept upright. Unguided rockets usually spin OTOH, maybe this is what you heard.

 

-SK

 

Hehe, yeah, sorry. :D

 

Yep, rockets are spin-stabilized ... perhaps the missiles try to roll naturally and the autopilot is forced to keep it steady using the control surfaces? but then hsouldn't they keep it upright just by existing?

[D-Scythe]

Python IV and Magic 2 both can roll their bodies around the flight axis, although the seekers are probably stablized.

[wsoul2k]

D-Scythe, I don't know if you've tried minizap, but using that to check the R-77 vs. the AIM-120 range out, the R-77 underperforms by just a few percept (in terms of arriving on target with the same velocity) ...

 

Just FYI since I think you'd find this interesting.

 

But, teh R-77 is said to have ludicrous maneuvering capability against the target aircraft -if- it does arrive with good velocity due to its control surface design (the lattice fins)

 

Of course, a violent maneuver when youv'e got no thrust will jsut drop you out of the sky, which is probably whyt he E-version's being built, so that the 77 can arrive with suffiicient speed at longer ranges.

 

The only thing that could make a difference (Assuming Sk's modelling of these missiles is correct, and there's no reason to believe otherwise) is what I think is the most unkown factor, that being the specific impulse of each rocket engine, which could make a difference by acceleratign the missile faster and to a higher speed.

 

Also, teh R-77 is, IIRC about 50 kilos heavier than an AMRAAM which means the same rocket would make the 120 go a bit farther in some cases (more acceleration, more speed but potentially slightly faster slow-down due to drag, too)

 

I just ask a few questions to an friend about this missiles....she is an specialist in this area...this girls is a human knowledg...is preaty hard talk with her because she is in CHINA working on the China spatial program

 

I will wait and ASAP she gime any reply i will post back

 

cya

[GGTharos]

She's in China and she's talking to you about classified material? Better stop talking to her before you get her jailed or executed :P

[wsoul2k]

She's in China and she's talking to you about classified material? Better stop talking to her before you get her jailed or executed :P

 

:D

 

Others have asked before ..but she dont talk about her actual work.

 

But you can ask anything else to her...and be ready you will ready a BIG reply lol 8)

 

She alreay work in Brazil and Russia and this grils know everthing about misiles rockets etc etc... 8)

 

PS: hey ECHELON get your ayes out of my mails lol 8)

[wsoul2k]

Just a question...what is this MINIZAP ??

[GGTharos]

Minizap is an application that SwingKid wrote: It calulates ballistic trajectories of missiles using real aerodynamic formulae.

 

It will give you the range a missile will fly to if it just went straight (Well, ballisticlaly straight ;) ) and shoudl be pretty accurate from what he's been told by someone to has the real data concerning the missiles, at least for the first 30 sec of flight.

 

According to SK's source though, missiles slow down somewhat faster in RL than in minizap, which could potentially be attributed to a whole bunch of things, like control surfaces moving and creating drag etc.

 

Also other parameters that SK doesn't have compeltely accurate are things like the specific impulse - it's a 'best guess' value, but it works out well enough I think that you can take the ranges produced as fairly realistic ;)

[wsoul2k]

Minizap is an application that SwingKid wrote: It calulates ballistic trajectories of missiles using real aerodynamic formulae.

 

It will give you the range a missile will fly to if it just went straight (Well, ballisticlaly straight ;) ) and shoudl be pretty accurate from what he's been told by someone to has the real data concerning the missiles, at least for the first 30 sec of flight.

 

According to SK's source though, missiles slow down somewhat faster in RL than in minizap, which could potentially be attributed to a whole bunch of things, like control surfaces moving and creating drag etc.

 

Also other parameters that SK doesn't have compeltely accurate are things like the specific impulse - it's a 'best guess' value, but it works out well enough I think that you can take the ranges produced as fairly realistic ;)

 

You have it ? can u send it to me ....well i dont wanna be acused of pirating SK program lol :D

 

btw here is my msn wsoul1974@hotmail.com im on rigth now

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

My conclusions have a reasonable basis. You're just conforontational and actually have nothing reasonable to back up your claims with. Doesn't make me 100% right, but it does make me more likely to be right than you ;)

 

Erhm.. because you say so? :roll: So, where's proof that the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? You haven't provided any yet. I, on the other hand... :roll:

 

Can you actually make an argument that doesn't make you look like a kiddie?

 

Coming from someone who says "our stuff is betterer because we have more money!!!111! but I can't prove anything!!11!" means absolutely nothing.

 

Are you actually curious at all as to any reasons why someone might think the performance of those missiles is one thing and not another, or do you just like to jump up and down and shout at the top of your lungs whenever you get the opportunity to attack anyone for any reason? ;) You've done so in a number of threads now, and so far you've failed to produce any reasonbale explanations of your own. How do you think that lends you any credibility at all?

 

Oh sure, and your opinions about R-77 being inferior with no proof or source lends you ***LOTS*** of credibility :roll: Are you done yet? When are you going to prove your claims? Or should I keep posting the link to IAF's site everytime you say the same old pro-merrikan tech garbage?

 

It's funny that you hate to see sources that prove you wrong, and you think you have the right to say that such source is wrong.

[Skywall23]

Well about the R-77 being inferior to the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile I cant say which one is better as it is really dificult to find accurate info about both. And when I say "accurate" I really mean it. :wink:

 

Modeling missiles is not an easy task to take in the game, but I, as russian fighter pilot, must confess that I believe more that the AMRAAM is better than the R-77, than the contrary.

 

Whatever is the real answer to this debate, we will hardly see accurate modeling of missiles in the game. In other words, you wont feel much diference from both.

 

I dont remember the range of the 77 but I assume that it is a medium range missile, which means that it can hit targets up to 30~40Km. The main diference between both ARH missiles that I think should we will notice when the missiles start to be moddeled corrected is the ability of the AMRAAM to burn-through during HoJ usage.

 

The rest is almost the same in pratical terms. Even if the AMRAAM is superior to the 77 in manoubrability terms, I dont believe that the diference is big enough to make the diference.

 

Now, back on topic: the missiles balistics modeling.

 

I tried the 1.1 tweaked demo only a few times. I only tried the Flanker (tested it to see how was the performance of the a/c and get to see the new avionics) and when it comes to missile balistics, things are almost the same. The R-27ER/R countinue to be the most effective missiles for BVR mode in the Flanker, but you can relock them, as said in the 1.1 read me.

 

The R-27ET/T is well known for being inifective against targets that arent using afterburner or that the target distance is too large.

 

I still havent tried the best missile which the Flanker can use in game: the R-73! :D

 

Im worried though about the AMRAAM issues which have been reported here. Lets hope they can remodel the missile to its true balistics, since the F-15 depends quite much on that missile. If the missile behaviour isnt corrected, we will probably see people waiting for a patch...or not.

[GGTharos]

My conclusions have a reasonable basis. You're just conforontational and actually have nothing reasonable to back up your claims with. Doesn't make me 100% right, but it does make me more likely to be right than you ;)

 

Erhm.. because you say so? :roll: So, where's proof that the R-77 is inferior to the AMRAAM? You haven't provided any yet. I, on the other hand... :roll:

 

...provided nothing.

 

Can you actually make an argument that doesn't make you look like a kiddie?

 

Coming from someone who says "our stuff is betterer because we have more money!!!111! but I can't prove anything!!11!" means absolutely nothing.

 

Look, this Indian site says the R-77 is the best! So do all these other sites! But I can't prove anything anyway!

 

Are you actually curious at all as to any reasons why someone might think the performance of those missiles is one thing and not another, or do you just like to jump up and down and shout at the top of your lungs whenever you get the opportunity to attack anyone for any reason? ;) You've done so in a number of threads now, and so far you've failed to produce any reasonbale explanations of your own. How do you think that lends you any credibility at all?

 

Oh sure, and your opinions about R-77 being inferior with no proof or source lends you ***LOTS*** of credibility :roll: Are you done yet? When are you going to prove your claims? Or should I keep posting the link to IAF's site everytime you say the same old pro-merrikan tech garbage?

 

It's funny that you hate to see sources that prove you wrong, and you think you have the right to say that such source is wrong.

 

 

But you haven't given me a source yet that proves me wrong at -all-. In fact, you failed to dispute what I used to base my conclusions on at all, and what I used is much more reliable than what you used.

 

When are YOU going to prove your claims? You think the IAF site is any sort of proof? Haven't you been reading what's been said about missile performance at all? Or are you simply unable to draw your own conclusions and have to parrot every site you see?

 

All you're doing is shouting 'no, eurssian stuff is better! Look, this website says so!' at the top of your lungs. You've got nothing backing that up - it's the usual PR that you see on the net, no different than the PR which comes out for the 120. Are you actually going to try and do some real research, or are you going to stick to parrotting websites?

[Kula66]

Im worried though about the AMRAAM issues which have been reported here. Lets hope they can remodel the missile to its true balistics, since the F-15 depends quite much on that missile. If the missile behaviour isnt corrected, we will probably see people waiting for a patch...or not.[/b]

 

I think people will be put off flying the F-15 online IF the AMRAAM is now busted - which is why I'm trying to get the opinions of people as to whether they think its broken or ... is it just me? Certainly the AA-10 IS more effective ... probably due to HOJ capability.

 

James

[D-Scythe]

Deathangel, your IAF site does not say that the R-77 is superior to the AIM-120 either. And GG has provided sources, just not websites; i.e. minizap, etc. In any case, if you are basing your conclusions around a single web page, whether it be an 'official' IAF site or not, is stupid. Try to get some *credible* sources - most of the stuff on the net is garbage anyway.

 

And I will once again repeat to you, this thread is not an AIM-120 vs. R-77 thread, but rather an 'AIM-120 is undermodelled in Lock On' thread. I understand, you are currently happy that the R-77 and R-27ER 'pwns' the AIM-120 in Lock On, but since Lock On is a simulation first and foremost, some of us would like to see it modelled more effectively - preferably up to the same level as the R-77. Since you will never publically find a credible, military source that analyzes and compares the avionics, airframe, software and performance of both the AIM-120 and the R-77, we feel it is fair that, with these two being the cutting edge of missile technology, that ED model them at least the same to best simulate this.

 

And I agree with GGtharos - having been forced many times to resort to the AIM-7 at WVR ranges over the AIM-120 is IMO ridiculous.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

Deathangel, your IAF site does not say that the R-77 is superior to the AIM-120 either. And GG has provided sources, just not websites; i.e. minizap, etc. In any case, if you are basing your conclusions around a single web page, whether it be an 'official' IAF site or not, is stupid. Try to get some *credible* sources - most of the stuff on the net is garbage anyway.

 

Tharos provided sources? LMAO. What sources other than his own thought/opinion/conclusion? And minizap, which tharos himself says isn't very accurate? LOL.

Did I get it right, IAF is full of shit, according to you and tharos? Is it the "because I say so and because I'm merrikan!!!11!"? LMAO^2.

 

Since you will never publically find a credible, military source that analyzes and compares the avionics, airframe, software and performance of both the AIM-120 and the R-77, we feel it is fair that, with these two being the cutting edge of missile technology, that ED model them at least the same to best simulate this.

 

Since neither of you will ever find a credible, military source that says the AMRAAM is superior to the R-77, you may remain quiet.

[Skywall23]

Deathangel, your IAF site does not say that the R-77 is superior to the AIM-120 either. And GG has provided sources, just not websites; i.e. minizap, etc. In any case, if you are basing your conclusions around a single web page, whether it be an 'official' IAF site or not, is stupid. Try to get some *credible* sources - most of the stuff on the net is garbage anyway.

 

Tharos provided sources? LMAO. What sources other than his own thought/opinion/conclusion? And minizap, which tharos himself says isn't very accurate? LOL.

Did I get it right, IAF is full of shit, according to you and tharos? Is it the "because I say so and because I'm merrikan!!!11!"? LMAO^2.

 

Since you will never publically find a credible, military source that analyzes and compares the avionics, airframe, software and performance of both the AIM-120 and the R-77, we feel it is fair that, with these two being the cutting edge of missile technology, that ED model them at least the same to best simulate this.

 

Since neither of you will ever find a credible, military source that says the AMRAAM is superior to the R-77, you may remain quiet.

 

Be advised that most internet pages have innacurate info on them although I dont doubt that the IAF site says that the R-77 is an excellent missile, I never saw the IAF fighting A2A combat with another nation, and I dont think that the 77 was ever used in combat. (I think...)

 

Until then, you should also remain...not quiet, but with some caution in case you are wrong. :wink:

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

My 1 and a half month challenge is still up. Where's proof that AMRAAM is superior to the R-77?

And personal conclusions do NOT count.

[Skywall23]

Lol? :roll:

[D-Scythe]

Tharos provided sources? LMAO. What sources other than his own thought/opinion/conclusion? And minizap, which tharos himself says isn't very accurate? LOL.

 

It *is* accurate, up to the first 30 seconds of flight. After that, it is then a *reasonable* estimate of what the missile will behave after, but according to SK, there seems to be some missing element that is causing the missile to glide slightly further than it should.

 

To relatively compare missiles to each other, minizap is by far much more accurate than Lock On's missile modelling. And there are real physics and stuff involved in it, rather than being just a webpage that spits out an exaggerated figure for range that has no credibility whatsoever.

 

Did I get it right, IAF is full of shit, according to you and tharos? Is it the "because I say so and because I'm merrikan!!!11!"? LMAO^2.

 

Please provide a single instance that we said that. Looking back, it seems like we just questioned the intelligence of someone who takes the words of a single webpage like the Bible, not the credibility of the webpage itself.

 

Since neither of you will ever find a credible, military source that says the AMRAAM is superior to the R-77, you may remain quiet.

 

And you will NEVER find a credible source that says the R-77 performs better than AMRAAM. The point is, in Lock On, the R-77 DOES perform BETTER than the AIM-120. On what can ED justify for modelling the missile like this? Just because one Indian website says so? That's ridiculous.

 

We are not asking for ED to make the AIM-120 superior, but rather equal to the R-77. I don't know why this seems like it's so hard to get for you. Can you not read english? It doesn't seem so, since you can write it pretty well. Hmm, maybe I should bold it for you...

 

We are asking ED to make the AIM-120 equal to the R-77, not better.

 

Keywords: equal and not. Note bolded emphasis on key words.

 

Now you be quiet and go bother some one else. You're wasting our time and basically destroyed this thread. Great job :roll:

[Kula66]

Remember, AMRAAM has been used in combat effectively (perhaps not against the greatest in the world - training/systems) but it does work as advertised ... it IS combat tested. The US learnt alot of lessons from the terrible performance of the early AIM-9s and 7s ... hit rates of less than 10%! AMRAAM had a long development for this very reason, it has had alot of money pored into it (altough I agree that this doesn't guarentee a good result)... it works.

 

My concern is its drop in performance from 1.02 to 1.1 ...

 

James

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

And there are real physics and stuff involved in it, rather than being just a webpage that spits out an exaggerated figure for range that has no credibility whatsoever.

 

In other words, IAF is full of shit. :lol:

 

We are not asking for ED to make the AIM-120 superior, but rather equal to the R-77. I don't know why this seems like it's so hard to get for you. Can you not read english? It doesn't seem so, since you can write it pretty well. Hmm, maybe I should bold it for you...

 

We are asking ED to make the AIM-120 equal to the R-77, not better.

 

Yea, let's make them equal. 100km for both, same turning ability, etc... :lol:

 

Now you be quiet and go bother some one else. You're wasting our time and basically destroyed this thread. Great job :roll:

 

Heeeheee I don't think so, son.

[wsoul2k]

And you will NEVER find a credible source that says the R-77 performs better than AMRAAM. The point is, in Lock On, the R-77 DOES perform BETTER than the AIM-120. On what can ED justify for modelling the missile like this? Just because one Indian website says so? That's ridiculous.

 

That is the POINT it is not bether then AIM-120.

 

We are not asking for ED to make the AIM-120 superior, but rather equal to the R-77.

We are asking ED to make the AIM-120 equal to the R-77, not better.

 

Keywords: equal and not. Note bolded emphasis on key words.

 

I think it already are......IMHO the point for DeathAngel is the RANGE for the R-77

 

 

in IAF ( Remember it is an OFICIAL site and deserv some credibility ) the range stated is near 100 KM ... the rest i think it is ok..

 

 

but i never see anyone who have fired an R-77 at more the 75 KM in lock on.

 

i think the only problem is the RANGE nothing else