is the hmd suppposed to lack symbology for queuing missiles / locked targets or is it just missing
F.2.2 because F.3.3 and F.3R are so close to each others that it makes no sense to add F.3R after F.3.3
Note that MICA-IR and AASM still are possible for F.2.2
Gaijin only adds aircrafts with Significant changes.
I wish to also have Rafale M F.1 after M4000
1 Like
The issue with you making these assumptions about my understanding is I’m significantly more familiar with this situation than you are. Currently, MICA’s range could be improved by A) introducing a ranging table to help reduce it bleeding energy excessively, B) tick rate could be increased which would resolve the vast majority of the wobble, and C) reducing the drag and improving the kinetic behaviours through tweaks to size and the aforementioned ranging table.
1 Like
If people put the effort they put into getting it ahistorical missile numbers it be a whole lot easier to get it ungimped.
This is the most bug reporting effort I’ve seen the community put into a French aircraft in a while, focus just a little bit of that on the MICA and it will be fixed too.
1 Like
It is supposed to have more range (some sources announce up to 100km range but Dassault, Thales and Safran do not give any information, there are only secondary sources), moreover the OST is supposed to be coupled to the radar/IRST and have a rangefinder to have the distance of the planes in front
3 Likes
Since the MICA are out, people here are trying everything possible to correct them, nothing has changed since 6 month
1 Like
The F2.2 would be good but the loss of the designation pod would still be a handicap.
1 Like
The same way Relaxed static stability is…
4-5 reports a month is a lot different than dozens a day
Then, i hope you made report about it.
I’m not pretending to be all knower about the mica, because i’m not, i’m just stating multiple facts.
You might surely be right, i hope so.
Almost all of the MICA reports from like 3 people. Shame now these muppets got the 2 MICAs they’ll consider their work done, instead of pushing for them to be fixed.
1 Like
In regards of bug reports, “accepted” doesn’t mean its going to be changed. Eight MICA is ahistorical and nothing will change that. It would also take away another main selling point of the F.4.1, the latest Rafale, which is an even bigger issue in my eyes.
5 Likes
Aye, I’m hopeful the devs will be sane and not add them. But it’s entirely possible they just do a mirage 2k 5f.
OFS would be enough to use AASM-IIR and GPS systems that are available on F.2.2
SBU-38 and SBU-64 (NATO designations)
as you just need to point and fire, then it’s automatically homing to the selected point - from that point AASM-IIR are made to “think” themselves in terminal phase and correct the path to hit directly the target. ^^"
1 Like
In my book,… F.3R (as found in files by some) is already a stupid idea, considering how weak it would come in the game from an Air-Air Point of view (no MICA-IR, no Meteor, MICA-EM being bugged, using Magic-2 that have been reserved for the latest Mirage 2000C-S5-2 retired in 2020[?]-> meaning that no Magic-2 ever seen a Rafale even in the Hangar since F.2.1)
If you talked to those DEVS of Rafale,… tell them that Rafale F.3R is too early,… better to add two Rafale (one M F.1, and one C F.2.2)
2 Likes
The selling point for F4 would be Meteor and Mica NG or IR
1 Like
METEOR is already F.3R integrated IRL
MICA-IR is integrated in Rafale since F.2 standards.
MICA NG are to be implemented on F.4.2 or F.5 (not known for now,…) means you have no Selling point for F.4.1
1 Like
chonk bomb. Though that’s probably only a selling point to me
The AASM 1000? That’s a bit short ^^"
Also 250 or 1000 doesn’t mean lot of difference since those bombs are guided on target, and will certainly be used with no fuse time(or 0.5sec). (Apart for tanks concentrated on one point, this addition would be close to meaningless)
Pod Talios instead of Damocles? No info on it.
Edit: i saw that part:
It is a selling point, just a minimalistic one ^^"
I want the chonk bomb