Which means basically nothing in game. Long ranged AMRAAM shots are trivial to defeat and just a waste of a missile. By the time you reach a range where you actually might want to be releasing an AMRAAM, you are well and truly in range of a MICA EM as well.
It means many things, just because you dont care doesnt mean long range shots are unworthy.
2 Likes
Okay, whatever, but if you are dying to a long ranged AMRAAM shot. Its 100% skill issue on your part. Especially in a meta aircraft like the Rafale.
Thank god they didnt give the MICA EM a range buff. We’d need Meteors to remain competitive with all the Aim-120C5 nerfs
1 Like
He’s right, only an afk player will die to long range shots
3 Likes
Complaining about an overpowered plane seems pretty fair to me🤷♂️
2 Likes
This is referring to Indian trials for the plane that eventually became the f3r
maybe we should remove the fictional missile count and other falsehoods from the current Rafale model and see you throw your toys out of the pram
1 Like
Keep this thread about the Rafale. We’ve asked this PLENTY of times already.
11 Likes
The rafale was overperforming in flight performance and rightfully nerfed, but now they are still trying to buff the engine’s thrust when it has actually the correct values.
the only thing i could think of that it’s underperforming in are maybe avionics, but then again it has the best avionics out of any plane in the game so it doesn’t really need more buffs.
1 Like
MICA underperforms significantly in terms of range and energy, not to mention VnE still wrong and should be fixed as well.
These are couple things that comes into my mind, you can ask the rest of them to DirectSupport.
1 Like
Dont forget to apply same method to every single vehicle that benefits, then lets see what happens.
Also missile count is totally realistic and possible, just like HMD since every Rafale was tested with HMD, except F1 iirc.
Mica underperforms just like any other fox 3 currently in game.
This nerfs are made as a balancing decision.
You wouldn’t like to play against a 50G thrust vectoring fox 3 with 80km of range, would you.
Im just stating the facts thats all.
Does it underperform? Yes.
Does it need its historical performance? Not now.
1 Like
That’s what i was trying to say in my previous post
Just because it’s underperforming doesn’t mean it needs to be changed right now
Never said it should, you said you can only remember one aspect that Rafale underperforms and i just reminded you thats not the case.
1 Like
The bug report about MICAs “missing energy” was thrown out a month ago cuz all the sources were trash and most of the bug report was just made based on assumptions made by DirectSupport.
To no ones surprise, another french bug report had been passed with dubious sources and has since been rectified after it was looked into.
7 Likes
Probably what I said then. it does not bring improvements to the thrust tho
I think there’s enough primary sources directly stating 75kN that piiot cherry picking can be disproven
The TM closing this report clearly didn’t have a good look at the rest of the report before closing it after removing the incorrect sources. The missile still can’t reach the minimum 80km requirement in game. There’s still primary sources on that. Also about the MICA VL 20km range (30G above 12km). Those are all primary sourced, and the MICA is not capable of doing it currently.
What was removed were mentions of the Magic 2 and mistral comparaison, which I do agree with their removal, because it’s quite obvious that those are different classes of missiles. However these were secondary to the report.
@DirectSupport can attest that I told him I did not agree on that specific point
This source seems to contradict known information with its comparison to the Atar:
Atar’s weight is 1590kg, thrust is 7200kgf, TWR is 4.52, an increase of 88% puts the M88-2 at a TWR of ~8.5:1
M88-2 has a known weight of 897kg, therefore it must generate 7624.5kgf (16,800lb) however the document doesn’t reflect this.
If you use the 45% lighter figure, the expected thrust drops to 7430kg
A TWR increase to a clean 90% would be 7703kgf/75kN, but they deliberately used a different percentage.
And ofc what’s your rationale to handwave the Safran/Dassault websites?
1 Like
That’s correct? 75kN is ≈16,860lbf