MICA-EM missile should get its realistic modeling

[Macron-Spokesman]

@Benji_Big_Yahu

I don’t see why this is such a big issue for you, the AIM-120 has been gimped for years yet you don’t see constant threads asking for a buff every time a different missile gets buffed.

@Macron-Spokesman

The community at large may see these threads as completely unnecessary but perhaps they can sympathize with us if they see it from the point of view of trying to avoid what has been occurring to the AIM-120 series for example. Gimped AIM-120A leads to gimped AIM-120C-5 which leads to gimped AIM-120D, just long series of unfortunate consequences that we could learn from by being pro-active rather than reactive.

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.

[vizender]

@FeetPics

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.

The MICA VL is not in game. It was only a hypothetical. I also don’t expect to see it anytime soon

@FeetPics

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.

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

[Macron-Spokesman]

@vizender

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.

What you said is exactly what I stated earlier in the thread 4 days ago.

MICA-EM missile should get its realistic modeling

I listed all of the reports for developers to choose the reports that they would like to implement. If you support one of the reports, doesn’t mean you automatically support the implementation of all the other reports either.

[vizender]

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

[Panther2995]

Surprised?

Its a known factor that he has personal issues with Rafale.

[FeetPics]

@vizender

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).

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.

@Panther2995

Surprised?

Its a known factor that he has personal issues with Rafale.

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?

[kedrigern]

@Macron-Spokesman

The addition of R-77-1 for Russia as well as the dual rack pylons which increased the missile counts

honestly shouldnt have gotten double racks, this was a weird decision from gaijin

@Macron-Spokesman

The addition of AIM-120C paired with increased missile counts for Germany, US, Italy, and UK

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

@Macron-Spokesman

Now the addition of AIM-120D

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

@Macron-Spokesman

Now the addition of the PL-12A with increased missile count.

ok?

@Macron-Spokesman

As of March 4th, AIM-120C-5 and AIM-120D both have had their maneuverability increased.

and still pull worse than 120A/B in HOBS

@Macron-Spokesman

In contrast with this, France realistically does not have the option to increase missile counts as the maximum is 8 on the Rafale.

8 incredibly agile missiles with very very good seeker on a very good platform

@Macron-Spokesman

For medium term planning of the evolution of the game allowing France to have breathing room

Breathing room…

@Macron-Spokesman

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

wow, rafale going from 68% WR to 59% WR…

@Macron-Spokesman

In contrast with this, France realistically does not have the option to increase missile counts as the maximum is 8

and it needs this because?..

[FeetPics]

@Macron-Spokesman

Somehow AIM-120C is a nothingburger even though pro players such as Bad_Karma and Migan do take them.

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.

[CollectorOfSins]

hopefully the coming aim120c5 turn buff will help. Not expecting the d to do much in terms of improvement though

[Macron-Spokesman]

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.