vl mica makes sense to test at sea level because it’s also used on and advertised for ships if i recall correctly
Only if the target is in the FoV of the radar, the radar is actually pointing at the target and the target has been detected by the radar. At which point, in a furball, the EFT is no better off with or without HMD as the target is probably being displayed in the HUD and not the HMD.
The advantage of the DL IFF, is that it DOESNT require a radar to show whether the contact is freind or foe. This gives you massive situational awarness and the ability to operate with radar off with 0 worries of any TKs and in a furball, you can see who is who at any angle. Even behind your aircraft if necessary.
1 Like
actually the scorpion hmd turns off if you try to look straight behind you. it’s dumb
Okay, fair enough on that, but still, you get IFF in angles that far exceed your radars FoV and IFF without even the radar being switched on. Making IRST ratting very effective
1 Like
also i lied, i think they fixed it, you can now look straight behind you with ur hmd still on. i think they completely fixed the hmd, it even doesn’t turn off when you look slightly off your hud.
They did correct HMD angles for a lot of aircraft last major.
1 Like
Rafale missing automatic input for damaged control surfaces // Gaijin.net // Issues
Thanks to @Kishin_SR6 for testing with me.
6 Likes
Yeah and based on those tests if you augment launcher speed and alt you could hit way beyond 80km with an AMRAAM same goes for MICA you directly claiming you have to go to the most extreme launch conditions to have a decent range is stupid when you know AMRAAM and MICA have relatively close max range performances.
Because everyone else is not launching their missiles in the most extreme conditions either. They do tests according to what could be similar to a combat scenario and determine the “maximum launch range” but it could be more in better conditions or less in worse conditions. For example based on the AMRAAM test, in better conditions you could get a better max range, says 110km and in worse conditions you could get less max range, say 60km. Making the AMRAAM a missile able to reach a max range depending the conditions of 60-110km same goes for MICA (More like 50-100km) or any other MRAAM in the world most of them depending on the conditons should have a max range of between 60-100km+ the difference at this point only relying on who has best kinematics. Most missiles max range are more of an average than an absolute number. Otherwise most companies wouldn’t add those two signs “> or +” when doing brochures for their missiles.
2 Likes
Dropping its missile count to 6 would limits its match impact via its combat endurance. Its a super easy way to reduce how damaging the Rafale is the the game as a whole without hitting it with ahistorical nerfs.
This would be true for all gamemodes and isnt specific to only RB or SB. I’m not sure why this is a complex point for you guys to understand.
Similarly, removing the HMD wouldnt stop the MICA from being the best missile on the best airframe, it would just limit how easy it is to use the MICA from the notch.
These 2 points are easily the best avenue to take to balance the Rafale while remaining historically accurate.
3 Likes
This is the issue with ya’ll “Absolute historical accuracy” people. WarThunder is a game and the sole fact there is proto vehicles or not yet in service vehicles in game throws your point out of the window. This is a game with inacuracies and favor treatment. Learn to put up with it or stop playing the game instead of bothering people and starting useless arguments in threads made to enjoy a vehicle not to fight for 3 hours straight because some hotshots that hate Rafale are unhappy.
2 Likes
Yes, WT is a game, it requires balance, which the Rafale is demonstrably not??? This isnt even a case of “absolute historical accuracy” its the optimal solution to balance the Rafale without having to hit it with ahistorical nerfs.
3 Likes
Sure, do a bug report then, don’t blame the French Bug Reporter. Other then that, it is what it is. And for the sake of consistency, would you support removing other aircraft missile that don’t have its historical loadout? Since this is Gaijin’s precedent.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
Gaijins precedent isnt “always add all weapons potentially available to an airframe” its that weapons are a balancing factor and they will add weapons an airframe can carry if required for balance purposes. Dont twist the situation with whataboutisms.
1 Like
Well then if they don’t nerf Rafale it means the plane must be balanced in some way in Gaijin eyes so why you keep complaining? Gaijin says its not OP therefore it isn’t; got away.
Call me biased, but Rafale being dominating weren’t like how F-14 used to dominate the battlefield. Everyone had Fox 3, the only thing that everyone that don’t have compared to Rafale (except EFT) is the superior avionics, talking about Rafale being dominating we shouldn’t also oversight how EFT also being dominating in current meta thanks to its avionics.
In Air RB at least, it can’t dictate the battlefield because how RnG the battle is, other than this, the better solution is the BR Decompression because this would benefit everyone. Although I must say, indeed you can score a kill easily, but this kill I can assure you pretty useless since half of your teammates are decimated.
4 Likes
Idk how delusional you have to be to believe this.
Since its introduction, its had the highest KDR/KPS/WR of all Rank 8 jets in-game, and by far the highest of any 13.7/14.0.
1 Like
This is a consistent precedent, it isn’t something entirely unique to the Rafale. But there aren’t any claims on ahistorical basis to this degree on other planes, or even other French planes.
The trend of buffs and ahistorical weapon kit is the same as with the 2000-5f, but surely that was never a problem, as it consistently performed as top contending plane after the introduction of Fox-3s. Even getting a nonstop stream of buffs.
Go ahead and petition a report to reduce the missiles, but unlike the flight model it is most assuredly not as easy to disprove.
1 Like