I think I’ve pointed out abundantly clearly that I think the problem is there aren’t any similar missiles in-game. It’s also not about how easy or hard it is to detect & defeat. It’s about loadout variety in kit people get to choose. This holds true to R-27ER vs AIM-7M/P also, no one will even consider taking AIM-7M rather than AIM-120 currently, yet as an example SU-30SM2’s get kit where they can genuinely choose between R-77-1 or R-27ER/T. I hope I could make it clear what I’m trying to say.
As has been pointed out many times in so many words, the other “long range IRCCM” that exists are way too strong. They do not share the same generation of IR seeker as the R-27ET does. Unless, of course, you’re advocating for the addition of these missiles without the IR/IIR seeker performance? Can’t wait for the uproar about that.
Any and all missiles clearly out performing has caused an uproar, R-27ER is still an uproar, AIM-54 was an uproar when it came and even more recently MICA-EM. Heck we can wait for next update and see what kind of uproar AIM-120D causes, too bad performance or too great, it’ll be uproar regardless. It falls for Gaijin to make the final balancing adjustments and choices to whichever armament they choose to add and when to add them.
Depends on the pressure and temperature from the exhaust, as if it’s too high you just have an expensive pipe bomb. That is just be the initial throat size as it may have significant burn away from the exhaust so it may be more efficient later.
AFAIK the length of the combustion chamber depends on which burn technique is used and how well the respective fuel can mix with the air in a given amount of time at a given flowspeed through it. I would imagine they could shorten the combustion chamber if they achieve better mixing of the fuelgas from the gasgenerator and the air at a shorter distance, like it was done in modern gasturbine engines of planes where techniques for flameholders like “trapped vortex” were developed to improve air-fuel-mixing while allowing shorter combustion chambers → less weight, less wear, less cost.
Also “pressure” would be more relevant than temperature as structural ceramics like silicon nitride can be used for whole combustion + nozzle setups for, for example, hydrogen + oxygen rocket fuel for five minutes straight without disintegration and without a supportive structural cladding.
The throttleable ducted rocket in the meteor is likely the first iteration of said technology by the prdocution company. I could imagine that we will see some substantial improvements in later iterations of this missile and its motor.
idc about micas range, what is a problem is that all fox3 seekers(except phoenix) are copy paste and for some reason the mica one is better.
For all i care give mica more range but nerf its seeker to be on par with the rest of the roster for balance and nerf the rafale to realistic flight performance.
Can you just answer the question? MICA’s seeker is apparently easy to defeat anyway as you said. So are you opposed to adding Meteor and fixing the MICA’s seeker since by your own words range doesn’t matter and MICA’s seeker is easy to defeat since all you gotta do is:
what would be the point of any missile other than the mica then, you would have the most agile, the best seeker the best range and an unrealisticly good platform carrying it. Might as well not play anything else.
Then I never understand why players ever state that range doesn’t matter when that is a very specific context that really just matters in esports area and not for the average player in air rb.
Those other countries vehicles are still mirrored so it has to even out. That’s why British Eurofighter (which regularly fights with France) has a higher winrate than Germany which is mirrored for example.
I don’t believe range is the end all be all. I think time-to-target, acceleration, and maneuverability are more important but range still does matter.
the truth is that kills beyond 20km rarely happen in top tier due to seekers usually getting notched easily.
So ranges of hundreds of kilometers simply dont fit the meta
The first 3-4 waves of missiles in an air rb game are over 25km and usually 7+ people die by then after 4 waves of missiles, with many more forced to dive and notch missiles. So while it is true that the majority do not die until it is less than 20km, a good portion do die above it.
But ranges of missiles do contribute in other ways, such as shaping the battlefield, forcing players to stay defensive, forcing players to lose energy evading and providing friendlies with more room to breathe, and etc.
That’s why I asked you to essentially put your money where your mouth is and state that you’re not opposed to the Meteor being added to the Eurofighter/Typhoon if “ranges don’t matter” “kills beyond 20km rarely happen” and “ranges of hundreds of kilometers simply don’t fit the meta”.
You have to choose between whether or not ranges do matter.
