on that i agree, but we don’t get any comparative charts for 70° launch.
and are we sure gaijin didn’t made any mistakes (miles as km)? mean even NASA made such mistake in the past,… so Gaijin.
Quite sure TOR forces the missile into horizontal. Not like you have a very simmilar system just added to the game, cough SLM, that would allow for such test if it can be modified.
still no,… VL makes 50G at 7km,… but already lost a 90° turn.
so it makes sense to times it by 2 because of the 90° angle, then +2km for the speed difference between VL and HL
i don’t have seen any charts (yet), but it makes senses to me (an engineer)
is it? i don’t have any chinese forces, but it that 90° launch made me check on the SPAAM
It also would require a custom where you can have another player with you that can maneuver at the right moment in time.
can’t it be coded into the AI flight path? (maybe only Devs,…)
You can, however the AI can be, tricky.
as Gaijin i guess ^^"
You can check videos. Tor missile tilts into horizontal position in the direction turret is looking, and then starts guiding.
yeah, but never seen trials onto an aircraft positionned 70° over the Tor.
But we have similar SPAAM with 90° Launch that’s fine.
Interestingly, we did find a way to get around it. We found two sources. One primary source stating MICA VL does 30G at 13km. Another primary source showing that the Magic 2 requires an airspeed of Mach 1.2 in order for the missile to do 30G. While the Magic 2 is not the same as the MICA, we figured it was close enough and was looked at largely in the context of missile aerodynamics and physics.
In a MICA VL scenario, the MICA reached 13km away at an airspeed of Mach 0.84, referencing the Magic 2 document means that the MICA was possibly missing quite a bit of airspeed and thus kinematics.
We figured these materials and testing were sufficient to get it in front of the eyes of developers who have better tools to conduct better testing and discern the magic 2 document, while also conducting their own testing to see if the MICA could do 30G at 13km away.
However, the report soon had the Magic 2 document source removed from the report, on the basis that it did not explicitly refer to the MICA, ignoring that the document partly explains the physics and missile aerodynamics and the developers could come to their own conclusions.
1 Like
I will be honest, i don’t think using Magic 2 in this case was a good idea. Not only is MICA much bigger and heavier, they have different methods of steering, and different methods of generating lift. Idk about center of mass, but it is also most likely different.
6 Likes
But that is a point towards the Magic 2 document as missiles with greater dimensions and weight do require more force to generate the same maneuvering capabilities. Further, the point of the report was to get it in front of the developers’ eyes, and the developers can conclude themselves whether or not the MICA can reach 30G at 13km away in a vertical launch scenario. I don’t believe technical moderators should prevent efforts to get developers to ensure a missile is performing how it should perform regardless of improper testing or explicit documents.
At the end of the day the report did contain a primary source that explicitly referenced the MICA doing 30G at 13km away. There is nothing wrong in principle with developers conducting a test to determine whether this is achievable or not with the current MICA.
That’s the thing. While they need more force, you can’t compare 2 missile with a different design, to prove a point.
Let’s look at guidence. Magic has 4 fins, in the shape of rectangles, with triangles added at the bottom half, at the front. These fins are behind small, static trapezoids of the same width. MICA has 4 trapezoid fins with smaller rectangles at the back of them, located at the rear, that are behind long, narrow wings.
You would have to be 90% sure these are comparable, to translate it to needed force on the comparasion basis.
I personally don’t know if they are, maybe they are and I’m just wasting my time writing this, but I hope you see my point, and that is also most likely why tech mod remove them (unless it was the good old not on topic so out).
I do see your point, it still should be determined by the developers if they do apply or not, and for them to do the testing.
The tech mod had removed the sources simultaneously as Fireball’s report on the MICA had been acknowledged implying that the removal of the sources had in part been motivated in favor of Fireball’s MICA report.
Well, if that’s the case, you would need to personally contact a trusted person, to pass said data to developers, with explanation why in your view they are relevant.
Ofc you have to be ready that developer might not even look at it, or look at it and say they don’t consider it relevant. But if you are able to get your point through, I will be happy for you.
I don’t think you can make that assumption when the aerodynamics of Magic 2 and MICA are so wildly different. Even a relatively minor difference in design can impact the available G massively. Just look at the different Sidewinder variants for an example of that.
5 Likes
you would have to do the same reasoning for any other missile in game though
Amraam for example can travel its advertised 70km range, so why would you use a different method for MICA ?
regarding the missile itself, reducing the drag to AMRAAM level (instead of the 1.65 we have now, which is very high mind you), reinstating a similar loft to other missiles, and tuning down the engine a bit so it corresponds better to this :
makes the MICA able to achieve the 80km mark quite reliably, if fired high and fast of course
And you can hit 2 birds with 1 stone by nerfing the brutal acceleration it gets off the rail and that so often causes balancing issues at top tier currently
My apologies I was at wrong
thanks for confirming you have no clue what 80km range on a missile means
1 Like