I would only support it in the current enviroment if the Rafale gets moved to 16.0 in the process.
Rafale gets it’s missiles fixed, but at the cost of possibly double digit minute queue times, small lobbies, only fighting themselfs or possibly bot lobbies.
You must not spend lots of tier in the RR&D or any EFT/US/any top tier jet using AIM120 thread. A lot of the discussions revolve around the AIM120 being gimped ans asking for outstanding bug reports to be fixed.
If multipath is that strong (ie, long range missiles are not worth it), why are you so against the MICA getting such a “minor” buff.
Annnd you missed his point. It’s precisely because the AMRAAM get shafted so much, with people making reactive reports to try and improve the entire family of missiles, that this thread is made to act proactively towards the future introduction of the MICA NG, and even in a shorter term as more missiles are added to other countries.
These reports would also impact the IR variants for that matter as well
MICA being among one of the least realistically performing missile as well, missing around 50% of its range (meanwhile outstanding report on the AMRAAM state around less than 10%).
While I agree somewhat with this point :
Except threads like this have been made every single time and always represent the position as-if the Rafale is just on the cusp of becoming irrelevant if the missile isn’t buffed to the point where it is better than everything else in the game in every possible performance metric.
It did not happen with the introduction of R-77-1.
It did not happen with introduction of Aim-120C.
It did not happen with introduction of Eurofighter AESA.
It did not happen with introduction of Su-30SM2.
It’s not going to happen with Aim-120D.
Nah I would like to clap ahistorical SM2 with my Rafale.
I don’t think this thread has the goal of rendering the rafale as almost irrelevant. Nor does it say that all the proposed buffs should be added at the same time.
In the main post itself, @Macron-Spokesman clearly states that the MICA is still a very strong missile, and I also agree with it.
On the other hand, you treat this thread as if the other nations were still leagues behind the Rafale + MICA combo as they were a year ago. While the rafale hasn’t had many changes in the duration (aside from the HMD change), other nations have had much better airframes, with the EFT AESA being the overall best platform in game, new missiles and also count of missiles, making the fields much more even. Since the Rafale is unlikely to get much changes anytime soon (FM being basically as good as it can get), and missiles are also not going to change for a while (MICA EM and meteor being denied), while other nations still have other options (AIM120D3 + potential fixes, leaked R27EA…), talking about the incorrect modelling of the MICA is absolutely fair game.
But I don’t think you care any of that. After all, you’ve been pretty clear several time that you just don’t think European vehicles (be it the Rafale but also the EFT) should perform better than the main nations. So obviously you are going to be against any MICA fixes ever, even in a situation where other nations get superior kits and performances.
Where have I said this?
European nations have had superior kit or performance for the better part of a year. Two years if you want to count Gripen meta.
The point of this thread is to ask for the performance of the MICA to be buffed far beyond anything else that is currently in the game and currently anything that is even planned to be added to the game. And this is the same set of improvements that French mains have been asking for since at least R-77-1 was added to the game.
This thread has had the goal of sharing outstanding reports on the missile. And basically everyone that agreed on buffing the MICA mainly considered the range of the missile being an issue. This would not buff it beyond anything else currently in game. It would make the shortest range fox 3 still the shortest range fox 3. Funny how, on one hand, the HOBS buff of there AIM120 making it the least manoeuvrable missile to still the least manoeuvrable missile but a bit less is considered basically useless but doing the same for the MICA would make it “beyond anything else in game”.
Have you read the bug reports or even attempted to model the missile so it has a combination of the following;
Both are required in order to meet the 30G performance metric at 12km.
The most likely outcome is that time to impact at 50km range is reduced by 20-25% before lofting is even considered. The time to impact difference between MICA + R-77-1 currently is around 6 seconds and the difference between Aim-120C is around 3 seconds. This new version of the MICA would have a time to impact advantage of 6 seconds over the R-77-1.
This time to impact difference would be even more greatly magnified at closer ranges. This is also not counting the 100 degrees per second turn rate improvement. There is no missile in the game that has anywhere near this capability either by way of G-limit, or from immediate pivoting action via thrust vectoring. “Fixing” this would result in the MICA-EM having a weapon employment zone that is much smaller than the R-73 while also having a 90 degree off-boresight capability and having a much shorter time to impact.
So no…the “bug fixes” are not just a small increase to maximum range; they are a substantial buff to every single aspect of the missiles performance. This is all in order to compensate for the fact that European nations and Russia finally have vehicle and weapon combinations that finally have parity with France has enjoyed for an entire year. And in order to compensate for the possibility that American planes could narrow that gap via Aim-120D implementation.
Once again; no one here has been arguing for all of those major buffs to be implemented right here and right now. The main issue of the missile as of now is simply its maximum range. Removing the 50km hard limit, adding loft, and adding the logic to reduce hard manoeuvres at long range are 3 simple things that would not impact its close range performances while improving the long range capabilities - probably not to the full range that is proposed in the bug report, but make it closer.
The other reports are currently not needed, but might be able to come as new generation fox 2 comes however.
But, it seems that you can’t start to fathom that bug reports can be implemented sequentially as the game progress and are persuaded that all bug reports should simultaneously be implemented.
There are 4 bug reports that are linked and the poll asks “Should the MICA-EM have its reports resolved?” The question being asked is not for Gaijin to resolve just a single report but rather all of them.
Even if we are being charitable to your position and not the position of OP…this is your claim early thread.
This appears to be in reference to the 30G at 12km bug report. This would require the substantial drag reduction and substantial lift increase that I just spoke of.
And here you are arguing in favor of the other buffs as well but saying they are not neccesary.
So the bone that you are throwing the community is basically that the MICA would only receive time-to-impact reduction at all ranges via the substantial drag reduction and lift increase that is already mentioned. Or at best it remains the same at medium and close ranges while also having the best long-range performance of any missile in the game and the best seeker.
I don’t think you realize you were just reiterating what I’ve been saying. Your point is that AIM-120s are gimped and AMRAAM carriers don’t complain as much, my point is that AMRAAM carriers don’t complain enough and that’s why they’re in the situation they’re in. In fact, everyone would benefit including French mains if AMRAAM mains complained more as that would get developers to focus more on fixing missiles overall as they have been deprioritizing missile fixes and instead been prioritizing new content and new missiles.
The MICA VL is not in game. It was only a hypothetical. I also don’t expect to see it anytime soon
You like misinterpreting things a lot I see. I do mention the effect that the other buffs would have. As a French main, I also say that those buffs would be very beneficial. I also clearly say that they are neither necessary nor needed as of now (considering the current game balance). I have then clearly stated that the only buff I’m currently advocating is the range improvement through the 3 items I have previously listed (50km limit removed, loft and limited manoeuvring at long range).
At this point, it’s clear that you just want to misrepresent what I say to defend your view point, and you are clearly aware of what you are doing. Forward, please consider that I won’t respond to you anymore on this subject, it’s clearly useless to have a conversation with you
What you said is exactly what I stated earlier in the thread 4 days ago.
Yeah, feet pics is just selecting a few bits of texts here and there to make it seem like we want a fully corrected MICA to destroy the balance tomorrow. It’s clear that he doesn’t want to engage in a respectful manner on this subject. There’s literally no point in arguing with him anymore
Surprised?
Its a known factor that he has personal issues with Rafale.
And which bug report refers to this issue?
This is the only report in the OP that has a maneuvering requirement vs range. The other report only references a self-destruction mechanic at 50km.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/LRugHHf8JcVR
Can you figure out a lofting profile or some other mechanism in order to reach this 30G @ 12KM metric that is specified in the report?
Statshark allows you to model custom missile parameters. It cannot be done without a massive reduction in the missiles drag. There’s no combination of loft profile or lift improvements that would reach the specific metric; in fact there isn’t even a way to get remotely close.
Can you name a plane that you don’t think I have a personal issue with? Or do you just pop up for ad hominem attacks whenever I criticize something?
honestly shouldnt have gotten double racks, this was a weird decision from gaijin
literally worse missile than 120A or B unless you for some reason are firing them at a target 40+km away and then assume the person in question is incompetent at notching or just flying cold
which is for now still unfinished and looks like it will be just C5 deluxe, unless the seeker gets a massive boost in being harder to notch its gonna be relatively mid
ok?
and still pull worse than 120A/B in HOBS
8 incredibly agile missiles with very very good seeker on a very good platform
Breathing room…
and it needs this because?..
Also this is worth coming back to as well since Statshark does track sessions and it’s possible to get an idea for how poor the Rafale in a “pro-players” hands when compared to other aircraft in the game.
These are Bad Karma’s statistics for the Su-30SM2 since it’s addition in December. This covers a period of around 3.5 months.
Now let’s compare Rafale during the same timeframe.
For all intents and purposes this is nearly identical performance in terms of kills per death, kills per battle, and win-rate. There is a 2.5% difference in win rate in favor of the Su-30SM2 in this case.
So how does Bad Karma do during the same timeframe with Aim-120C equipped aircraft?
The metrics are about the same in terms of win rate and kills per battle. However the kills per death are worse which does imply that he needs to take more risks with Aim-120C equipped aircraft in order to achieve similar performance. And this is on the best-case-scenario for an aircraft; i.e Eurofighter AESA in Britain. It should also be noted that developers are not adding Aim-120D to Eurofighter as of yet.
So what about when he does play one of the planes that will be receiving Aim-120D?
Well would you look at that…he does quite a bit worse. He scores significantly less kills per battle, less kills per death, and lower win rate. In fact he has faired worse than you have when stats are measured over the same amount of time.
So why is the upper performance bound of USA planes significantly worse in the hands of a pro-player when compared to Rafale, Su-30SM2, and Eurofighter AESA? Why does a plane who’s upper bounds in the hands of a pro-player is effectively equal to that of the two other best planes in the game have to be buffed in order to compensate?
It makes no sense. It’s just a desire to preserve seal-clubbing status quo that you have enjoyed for the past year.
hopefully the coming aim120c5 turn buff will help. Not expecting the d to do much in terms of improvement though
MICA missile missing orientating phase // Gaijin.net // Issues
Another new report, one of which would be a minor buff that developers could implement if people are concerned about the other reports being too much of a major buff.
