this livery makes me want to play chess
lots of ifs, but the fact that it’s being considered is flabbergasting in its own right. So much for “peace first” i suppose
Regarding the MICA and to come back on topic, i would genuinely prefer if it had its actual range but the Rafale gets limited to 6 missiles. It’s also surprising that RBE2 AESA has basically half of the range it’s supposed to have
imo I’m not surprised Gaijin better giving Rafale 8 missiles instead of actual MICA Fix, because MICA is really powerful if it can do BVR. I can’t believe I can rack up more kill in EFT than Rafale by simply going BVR and denying enemy BVR Spam.
But well, I’d also think that maybe in the next summer update, Gaijin will give MICA its actual fix, because we already had R-77-1 that can pull harder but also travel faster. MICA only edge is the Thrust Vector, but that will also make it a double-edged sword because even with a fixed MICA, I’d think it’s still bleeding faster than most missile, even more than R-77-1.
it would bleed less energy than 77-1, but have a weaker engine
MICA is quite aerodynamic IRL, it shouldn’t decelerate as fast as it currently does. This deceleration problem is quite a classic on french missiles. Magic I & II used to hit a wall the moment the engine was off (fixed since then), Mistral also has a deceleration issue, and so does MICA.
It’s not necessarily linked to the missile themselves however, but maybe the way air itself is modelled in this game. MICA for example can reach more than mach 5 if fired high and fast, and its speed in the high altitude regime seems somewhat correct or even a bit overperforming, but it is unable to reach the speed it should reach in its VL configuration (should be mach 3, barely reaches 2.6-2.7 in game)
Agree with that, but AFAIK, for R-77 also suffers from this problem, R-77 shouldn’t bleed too much speed when traveling, but Gaijin really can’t model that air thing making R-77 have way shorter range than it should be.
from my understanding, R77 suffers from the absence of drag depending on speed
Overall though, the missile should be draggier than other missiles, with a very slight disadvantage at high speed, and a really high drag at transsonic speeds
as a general rule of thumb, things tend to be destroyed faster than the time they take to build
True but I can’t imagine that happening… I hope it won’t happen, that would put the whole western world on the ground
Lmao
what the hell is wrong with the drag?
i’m going mach 2 with 3 GBU-24s, 2 wing fuel tanks and 6 micas with a full fuel load
with all due respect, this is ridiculous
ordonnance drag isn’t modelled in game, same goes for any aircraft
Ordnance drag is modelled in game in so much as ordnance causes drag. It’s just not modelled very well (the amount of drag is wildly incorrect for most ordinance).
It is modelled they dont model the drag from the pylons.
Each piece of ordinance has a drag and weight value.
Because developers decided lowering drag was a more fitting decision to do rather than lowering channel loss of the engine in order to achieve proper supercruise performance.
Which was clearly the incorrect option and needs to be re adjusted
Please though do provide the source that says a Fully loaded Rafale can acheive mach 2.0.
No source of that kind exists.
I wrongly assumed it was a result from a bug report.
Thats fair enough
ig it would be akin to gaijin decreasing drag for the EF to achieve 1.5 SC but with the sideeffect of it now going mach 3
Just think with the upgrades to the M88 engines it will perform like an X-Wing
I see nothing wrong, F-2000A can fly 1700 kph with 10x Paveway IV and snipe base with GPS (they can also drop at any speed)
