On a somewhat adjacent note, surely the tracking shouldn’t just break down when you have more than 40 targets? Once you have more than 40, things start to accelerate to mach Jesus and teleport around inexplicably…
1 Like
That sounds like the Spaghetti code having a nervous breakdown :D
Ironically that sound’s more like stuff AI-generated code does.
I feel like at 18km altitude you’re gonna have so little maneuverability to the point where you’re just gonna be smacked with a fox 3. No point really of going that high up
Yeah, the only reason I could see even going above 12/13km is just to sling a missile at long range before dropping back down again.
So unless it has a knock on effect to the rest of the thrust curve its a minimal change
Please take a look when you have time!
2 Likes
It’s not overperforming per say. It’s definitely wrongly modeled, as it has too long of a burn time, although deltaV is somewhat correct. It does most probably have too much drag tho since it doesn’t meet its vertical launch requirements (so does the ASRAAM/CAMM visibly). Its TVC is also underperforming.
A fixed MICA would have significantly better time to target at close range, and its turning performance might be worse or similar, depending on how TVC deflection and the higher acceleration act on the overall missile performance.
Looks like a buff to the thrust loss as altitude increases. Assuming the buff is linear, it would mean around a 15% buff at 18km, so 7.5% buff at 9km and so on. Probably isn’t linear and the buff percentage is actually lower as altitude decreases. And since the usable altitude of the EFT is under 15km, I don’t think the buff is massive
The greater issue though is that everything else is underperforming significantly. No idea why they wont give anyone else seeker buffs
So whilst they refuse to do it for others, MICA should have the same standardised seeker
Yeah the seeker issue is quite baffling, especially since the C5 on dev server had the same seeker.
Funnily enough, the seeker change for the MICA comes from another report for it to be J band - which wasn’t actually implemented (edit : implementing it would be fun, there are several eastern RWR that don’t detect J band in the BRs at where the MICA can be found). Since it’s another band, it physically means it’s a smaller FOV (the higher the frequency, the narrower the beam but with increase range).
Tho, I think it’s always important to note that contrary to many people’s belief, this FoV reduction does not impact the speed gage at which to notch the missile, only the fact that the missile is less likely to catch on chaff since they leave FoV faster (not saying it’s not important, obviously this is still very strong).
The fact that the MICA is harder to notch mainly comes from the fact that it accelerates very fast, and the faster a missile goes, the smaller the notch gate is. A fixed MICA would overall be even more annoying to fight.
Also explains why the AIM120 at close range is so easy to defeat with a pretty inacurate notch, even when it can kinematically turn into the enemy
and unless im mistaken, that is exactly what would happen if this report ever got fixed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/QhYDPYj3LIRl
Yes exactly. I still don’t understand why they removed it from the C5 when it went live. Now my only assumption is that the devs have access to Russian docs on the Aim120 that are pure copium and/or misrepresenting the missile so they refuse actual primary sources
Not even C5s, I think that report is for the A/B and there is limited evidence to suggest the C5 had an improved seeker over the A/B if im not misremembering
1 Like
Looks like whoever decided to pass that really just wants the german players not to have anything nice.
Forwarded for all 3 nations even though only one nation (Germany) has purchased it.
1 Like
Eurofighter boutta nuke everything in a dogfight even more
Looking at this Germany should get LWS and MK.2 since Eurofighter is a “consortium project”
I honestly don’t get these double standards first German EF don’t get PIRATE or LWS why bc of “we want to give every nation it’s unique plane” now we don’t get the radar for the same reasons, but when a suggestion exclusively made for Germany to make it’s EF unique by implementing the AMK that was developed by Airbus alone, installed on German EF, running the risk of losing a plane bc of it, since a software update is needed for contractors adjustments and risking thier on pilots for it, plus heavily and firstly funding it, don’t get to have it, but instead it should go to everyone bc it’s a “consortium project”, i call this hypocrisy at it’s finest then.
7 Likes
lmao
Kek, not even a suggestion, I guess Germany gets shafted.
Time to “prove” that the EXACT SAME airframe can infact fit the same radars.
2 Likes