guys shouldn’t we all be grateful that the frkin rafale is added and just bug report what is missing and underperforming and move on be happy 😊
8 Likes
Which would create quite the unbalanced situation. A Rafale F4.1 with all its bells and whistles modelled correctly would basically render any other aircrafts currently in game obsolete
as for the “if we already have them now”, i suppose we’ll see what they do with DirectSupport’s MICAs reports. If they act on them quickly, then there’s a hope future QOL updates will arrive in due time. I have a feeling it won’t be the case however
The rafale F4.1 would be on par with the EFT in game. Currently the F3R in dev server was just a side dish for the EFT, which had better overall FM and better weaponry. (10 missiles + 12 brimstone, vs 6 missiles OR 4 missiles and 6 AASM isn’t even close). We can expect some buffs -FM should be closer- and the radar will be modelled correctly -not that it would matter much considering the range of the MICA. F4 would bring some much needed missiles, and solidify the use of an HMD and IRST. Compared to the F3R, or even the F3, the difference in game aren’t massive aside from weaponry.
There apparently was a buffed to TVC in dev. I haven’t had the time to test it. We will see. There are many reports that would significantly improve the missile*. (edit : and just like the Magic 2, we can expect them to arrive slowly. I’m not a fan of that, but that’s how devs prefer to do it)
1 Like
The problem isn’t TVC but range
We wouldn’t necessarily need more missiles if they were actually capable at longer ranges.
i love this concept, unfortunately there are some people that get really pissy when the jet isnt 100% historically accurate in their totally historically accurate vehicle combat game where there are totally not planes and tanks that literally never existed !!!
6 Likes
Fixed MICA would have the range that the AIM 120 currently has. When other vehicles will get more potent C or even D variants, we will be back to square one. We have to accept that we are not going to have longer range missiles than the competition until the Meteor. And while the MICA IR is still not planned, we are going to need all the missiles we can.
Anyway, I think I’ll stop here to not clog down the thread on dry exchanges. We clearly haven’t the same vision.
I know right. Some prefer to have the worse version possible, the most accurately possible, not considering what they’ll face. I just want to have a competitive jet that is fun to play. Anyway, I’m ending here.
4 Likes
but but but! this is a study simulator and needs to be as accurate as possible [!]
1 Like
In reality, there is such a thing
yup pretty much
Agreed to disagree then
I think I saw someone showing Rafale top speed was too low in-game. It should retain mach 2 capability;
Source
5 Likes
Maneuverability can be assessed indirectly. 0.56M 5.6-5.8G
6 Likes
Towards the end it appears, ~21.8 deg/s sustained
7 Likes
Seems like those configurations existed at one time sad they didn’d retained it
2 Likes
Rafale A is a larger aircraft, the Rafale production models were downsized considerably. The two centerline MICA could not be stored there now.
2 Likes
That’s Rafale A. It’s structurally completely different from other Rafales
1 Like
I know that is why i didn’t pretended the C variant could still do it
they really like to give the pilot and the airframe a run for their money in these shows it looks like :
2 Likes
So even AASM-500 and AASM-1000 have same rocket engine? I thought it would be bigger and stronger, like PGM-2000 has 2x of PGM-500 rocket engines.
AASM-500 does not exist, at least not in service. AASM-1000 definitely has a larger engine, but I am not aware of its performance at the moment. My previous comment was entirely related to the variants we are currently getting.
1 Like
