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

Well, even if that is the case, there are other things that contribute to drag, like the surface area of the lifting vanes, as GG pointed out. In any case, if Chizh, JJ or you would like to continue this discussion in any reasonable manner, I suggest you guys take it up with Swingkid or GGtharos. They seem know a lot more about missile ballistics and are very familiar with the Minizap (SK wrote it) than anyone else in this English forum, and are probably much more able to do it in an intelligent fashion.

But it seems now that we've established that the AIM-120C should have a much lower drag index than the R-77 in level flight.

Yeah, surface area too. In any case, just boot up Minizap and take a look. I'm not in the same level that you are or SK, so I'll defer judgment and stuff to you guys.

 

BTW, I'm Canadian, not American ;)

 

Hey JJ, what are your thoughts on the matter? I don't think you've put in your 2 cents, although I understand if you don't want to touch this topic with a 10 ft pole.

Hi D-Scythe,

I believe the AIM-120 and R-77 to be very similar performers with slight differences in characteristics, so I wouldnt mind if they were modelled exactly the same in Lock-on.....i.e. including range :)

But apart from that, I think I better stay out of this discussion mate :)

- JJ.

I'm 100% with JJ ... they're the same class of missile, and really, one stick flies like another for the most part ;)

ED has been changing the missile variables over and over since the initial release of Flanker 2.0, and it has never been enough. It seems that simply, the missiles don't obey physical laws, but rather they are scripted. If we need more realistic missiles, they should have a flight model, not a script. But it's a risky business - to do this can easily make the missiles perform much worse, instead of better. We should now accept v1.1 missiles as they are, but encourage ED to begin developing missile physics for the next project, instead of tweaking the same script variables again and again.

-SK

ED has been changing the missile variables over and over since the initial release of Flanker 2.0, and it has never been enough. It seems that simply, the missiles don't obey physical laws, but rather they are scripted. If we need more realistic missiles, they should have a flight model, not a script. But it's a risky business - to do this can easily make the missiles perform much worse, instead of better. We should now accept v1.1 missiles as they are, but encourage ED to begin developing missile physics for the next project, instead of tweaking the same script variables again and again.

 

-SK

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing more advanced missile physics in 1.2 :)

Great discussion for the most part, but I must have missed something. Were the missiles, in fact, changed? Will the AMRAAMs perform like the demo or like 1.02? Sorry for the question. I appreciate the discussion and the beta testers/developers that chimed in.