MICA-EM missile should get its realistic modeling

Dev Server General Discussion - Dev Server
1

Should the MICA-EM have its reports resolved?

  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

Over the last 8 months up until this dev-server, an extraordinary amount of changes have occurred to top tier air realistic battles. These changes include:

  • The addition of R-77-1 for Russia as well as the dual rack pylons which increased the missile counts
  • The addition of AIM-120C paired with increased missile counts for Germany, US, Italy, and UK
  • Now the addition of AIM-120D
  • Now the addition of the PL-12A with increased missile count.

Furthermore, members of the community have been asking for the AIM-120D-3 prior to even testing of the AIM-120D citing sufficient lack of improvements of the AIM-120D model over the AIM-120C.

In contrast with this, France realistically does not have the option to increase missile counts as the maximum is 8 on the Rafale. Missile upgrades were inquired and understandably denied by Smin, as MICA-NG and Meteor missiles are not comparable to AIM-120D. See below:

Some of you may then ask, why specifically is this thread made when the MICA is still a great missile in the current meta?

  • For realistic modeling of the kinetic performances of the missile
  • For medium term planning of the evolution of the game allowing France to have breathing room in relevance of missile quality as they will always lag in missile quantity.

It is clear to developers that next-gen radar missiles are off the table, and leaves only this current generation of missiles on the table. This leaves little room available for France in terms of radar missile upgrades besides to increase the MICA-EM’s capability by resolving some reports. It is sensible then to ask for the MICA-EM to be modeled correctly.

In this report, it shows that the MICA-EM does not have the ability to hit its maximum range. In fact, the missile does currently self-explode if the missile travels 50km horizontally. Even when launched at topspeed the maximum range is not achieved regardless. MICA EM missile should have increased maximum range // Gaijin.net // Issues

Another report shows that the MICA-EM missile should have a burn-time of 3.5-4 seconds rather than the current 6.75 seconds, reducing the burntime increases the acceleration of the missile and also decreases the time-to-target of the missile at medium and long ranges. MICA motor incorrect // Gaijin.net // Issues Thanks to @Fireball_2020 for this report.

Another report also shows that the MICA-EM missile underperforms in turn rate, as it should be capable of doing 100 degrees in 1 second. This not only increases maneuverability but also increases the effective range as the missile would be able to quickly orient before accelerating in the direction of the target. MICA missile underperforming in turn rate // Gaijin.net // Issues

Lastly, a report has shown that the MICA missile fails to do 30G at 12km when launched vertically. Even when launched from an aircraft with some altitude and launch speed, the missile could not do 30G. This could be due to a lack of maneuverability, lack of energy retention over distance, or a mixture of both. MICA missile fails to do 30G at 12km. // Gaijin.net // Issues

9 Likes
2

BALANCING, THAT’S ALL YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, thank you. (this is a game)

2 Likes
3

No thanks.

1 Like
4

While the MICA still remains a strong contender for the title of the best missile in game even with this major update, it’s true that the platforms that carry it are limited in the amount of missiles (8, when others can bring 12 or even more).
I do believe that, at some point, at least the range increase should be considered, since this remains the major limitation of the missile (trying to survive a large salvo of R-77-1 and future Aim120D) with next to no avenue for counter attack until you reach medium-short range engagements.

Edit : this would be especially true in the case the VL launch version is added, since as of now it would underperform to such a degree it would mostly be useless above 10km

5 Likes
6

No. If 120D or Pl-12 do start to perform better then sure

1 Like
7

I’ve been advocating for AMRAAM to get their fixes, great to see that reciprocated.

3 Likes
8

Its already the strongest missile in-game. Buffing it further is just unncessary, the priority should be buffing the weakest missiles first

3 Likes
9

It’s kind of a no brainer to be honest.
Not only do you have to deal with inferior range while using MICA currently, you’re also immediately cornered playing in BVR against a x12 R-77-1 / AIM-120s.
Yeah, it’s about time MICA-EM gets its correct range

7 Likes
10

Yes, developers have multiple options when it comes to the MICA missile, they could fix its range since people have been saying that range doesn’t really matter in-game, nor does BVR matter either. So it isn’t sensible for anyone who have been saying that range doesn’t matter to be against any range fixes.

1 Like
11

Except there shouldn’t be any resistance to fixing its range. The same people that have been saying that HOBS matters more and range doesn’t matter, are also somehow opposed to MICA’s range being fixed for example, which is a bit illogical and inconsistent.

Further, I already agreed that any and all reports on AMRAAMS should be fixed. But AIM-120D is here, and who knows if they’ll change it to AIM-120D-3. If they change it to AIM-120D-3 by increasing thrust and range, are you still going to be opposed to having MICA’s range fixed? When should MICA’s range be fixed, when AIM-260 is added?

12

That’s my point exactly. Improvements to the motor burn time would bring down the turning capabilities but improve* significantly time to target (and make it harder to notch as well). Improving intantaneous turn would, well, make it better at very short range.
Both of these buffs would be nice to see for me, but I understand that they are not currently necessary nor needed.
The long range buff would not be overpowered, after all people always love to claim it’s easy to notch a missile from 15km away. But it would also allow the rafale to not stay in a constant notch early game while su30sm 2 are firing 12 r77-1 at you one after the other

1 Like
13

In Sim mode its become abysmal, trying to either force a merge: (while surviving 12+ hostile bvr aam shots) is nearly impossible if the hostile pilot has 1 brain cell they will either intercept your counter launches or simply run your Mica out of energy without even trying to notch: “they simply fly away”. kinetic range does indeed matter.

1 Like
14

We have the Battle Rating system for balancing

2 Likes
15

Yup, and mind you, the range fix would still not have the MICA-EM outrange any of the other fox-3s except the base R-77 and Derby which are not used at top tier. It would still have the missile being outranged by AIM-120 series, R-77-1, PL-12, PL-12A and etc.

16

No thanks, rafale is still best plane in sim by far and adding this mechanic will make it even more cancerous
Currently in something like the su-30sm the only way to actually kill a rafale is to force a dogfight, other wise rafale literally mogs everything

17

And why is the Rafale being compared to Su-30SM and not the Su-30SM2?

18

???, what does that have to do with anything? Your vision is completely dysfunctional, and Rafale stays at 16.0 and plays alone? Learn once and for all that this is a game that tries to be as realistic as possible. Mica will only have its capabilities reinforced when missiles that can compete with Mica in their total capabilities are introduced.

19

Honestly it’s cause it’s all I’ve been playing cause top bracket is ALWAYS 14.3-14.7 minimum and playing su-30sm2 feels cheesy after spading it in sim.
And rafale is better than the 30sm2 anyways

20

This would be perfectly balanced which is what you say you want

21

i’ve experienced the opposite 70% of the time. Most “smart” su 30 sim players will intercept all 6-8 micas then force a merge. if you didn’t carry magic 2 your left with only guns.

1 Like