Have you seen the MICA’s loft compared to the other fox-3s? It has like almost nothing, 5 degrees of loft compared to something like 20-25 degrees of loft on all other fox-3 missiles.
We can do the test. Give me five minutes. In a scenario with a target 80 degrees to the right, the 22.5-degree lofted mica only goes 6 km further, so it’s not a significant difference.
After thinking alot about this, I have changed my mind. Yes mica should be realistic
2 Likes
Yes, and the range report asks for 10km more.
Why would anyone be against a range increase of which 60% of the range increase is from increased loft which does reduce time-to-target in the short-medium ranges where mica’s advantage could be reduced?
Time-to-target is undetermined; it depends greatly on whether the target makes two zigzags, causing the missile to lose 10 km of effective range and 5s of time to kill. What causes the big difference in the tests I’m doing is either the drag or the engine.
1 Like
Finally there’s a report for HOBS capability on AIM-120 that got accepted. But it’s for AIM-120D it seems
[DEV] AIM-120D Lacking HOBS Capabilities // Gaijin.net // Issues
Right now, MICA carriers are 6-8, so they just get intercepted
Unless they make it actually difficult to intercept them yes MICA should be realistically modeled so you at least get a high end missile for a low missile count
1 Like
The F-16 carries six AIM-120s and no one seems to mention it, while the F-15E carries eight AIM-120s and no one seems to care. I don’t understand the tunnel vision of War Thunder players. Both aircraft can take on the Rafale head-on. Stop thinking only about the Su-30 or F-18 and start looking at the game as a whole.
Aren’t neither of those 14.7
One is 14.0 and the other is 13.7. Both engage the Rafale in several battles. and now there is also an F-16 at 14.3
Both also engage 13.0s and 12.7s in several battles Rafale does not
Those 2 are more victims of compression
2 Likes
Yes, but is the solution to buff mica or make interception more difficult?
Now this is some faulty thinking. 14.7s do not need to be compared to 13.7s, but should be compared to other 14.7s. If there’s a problem with 14.7s as a whole, then it’s a compression issue.
My answer?
Iunno
I’d love an accurate MICA
But I think it’d be a bit more redundant and if not OP if they do make interception more difficult
To me its a fork in the road
1 Like
ive looked into the method that gaijin uses to model burn times and accelertion.
it has the following values in game currently
timeFire:r=2.75
timeFire1:r=4.0
force:r=20250.0
force1:r=10720.0
if you reduced the burn time, you would reduce the forcePerSecond… (by reducing the seconds the force is applied)
hence it would be a nerf
EDIT: seems the report states it should be single stage boost, hich might change things regarding the end result
Ofc, but Gaijin isn’t that stupid, it would still have the total amount of force, just reduced burntime. The range report and also the 30G report ensures that there is still a great reasonable amount of force.
I think with some BR decompression (which is basically always needed) Gaijin would need to make the MICA have better aerodynamics than the default Blender cube regardless of interceptions being as they are
1 Like
The burn time decrease would still have to correlate to a roughly 1000m/s deltaV. This would mean an increase in the thrust during the boost (roughly 2x, with a 2x shorter burn)
1 Like
thing is, currently is has a stronger boost and a weaker sustain motor.
and im not sure that gaijin will keep the boost motor force the same
as in, people might expect the following fix:
timeFire:r=4.0
force:r=20250.0
but gaijin might do this:
timeFire:r=4.0
force:r=19000
so i hope they (bug reporter) have detailed data (i dont trust gijin)
In the end the force being different overall won’t be a problem so long as it still meets performance specifications such as range and G overload at certain distances.
1 Like