Won’t be necessary, this report itself shows that the burntime is wrong. The missile’s performance is matched with the low-altitude performance chart but it doesn’t match the high-altitude performance chart. So Gaijin should naturally come to their own conclusion and deduce that the burntime/acceleration and possibly the drag is wrong.
The AIM-7F and R-27ER match the low-altitude and high-altitude performance charts since they have the correct burntime and drag values. But the Magic 2 only matches the low-altitude performance charts.
Here’s a good summary since the report is now quite lengthy since I have updated it for the last time.
Real life footages show a video of Magic 2 missile doing 12 seconds burn time. Another real life footage shows a video of Magic 2 missile doing approximately 5-6 seconds before burning out and then striking a drone target. Reasonable to conclude the first footage is slowed down by 2x.
I tested two different missiles with the same total impulse:
Current live Magic 2, 25,000N with 2.2 seconds burn time = 55,000N
Custom test Magic 2, 10,000N with 5.5 seconds burn time = 55,000N
3 different performance charts are in the Magic 2 doc: 4km rear aspect, 6km rear aspect, 7km rear aspect.
4km rear aspect: Both missiles succeeded
4.4km rear aspect (10% more): Current Magic 2 still hit, Custom Magic 2 failed
6km rear aspect: Both missiles succeeded
6.6km rear aspect (10% more): Current Magic 2 still hit, Custom Magic 2 failed
7km rear aspect: Both missiles succeeded
7.7km rear aspect (10% more): Current Magic 2 still hit, Custom Magic 2 failed
Conclusion: Increased burntime in-line with historical footages while keeping the same total impulse led to the missile performing more accurately with a 5.5 seconds burntime.
There we go, that will probably stop the CC that says “iT DoEs not Have enOUgh raNGeeeeeee”. As a 5.5 sec burn time, if i’m not mistaken, would likely make it act like any all aspect missile beside Magic 2 which means long burn time to hit “far” away targets and a more progressive acceleration instead of an instant “woosh” and then drag completely ruining the missile.
That’s a bummer, I love current Magic because of its difference (fast and quick to manouvre instead of slower like R-73/AIM-9M/AAM-3). I love PL-5B/C because of that.
Plus it would finally give a credible reason to why the Magic 2 would be able to pull 50G at all times as here people won’t even be able to call shit on the enormous acceleration of the missile. Add to that the fact that the turning radius will be much tighter meaning it could put and R73 that has thrust vecctoring to shame.
I understand, its just that for last 2 years I got quite fond of the current Magic II. But I’m pro historical accuracy in WT so I await the fix. Also Magic II currently pulls more than 35 Gs a lot of times.
as a matter of fact, i once had this in a custom room :
76.1 g right here X)
So huh, either there’s something i’m missing (tac view doing tac view things), or magic II is on steroids these days.
I noticed i don’t have that problem as much with other missiles like mistrals, 530Ds or VT-1s. They can sometime go over their limits, but by 5G, not 41 like right here X)
Source?
For all i have read so far, the 50G ability of Magic-2 is only availble at high energy states → burn time and first pull after that(in short ranges)
Similar to the MICA-IR which have an Ability of 50G for about 20km, then it drops to 35G up to the max range of 60km.
In the same time, for others, we have documents that show a Mechanical stress of the missile frame up to 135G → instantaneous G’s such as the 76G showed might be possible even if unlikely to account for as a pilot and payload delivery process.
Magic 2 can pull 50G from 1.25 mach according to Matra. It can sustain the 50G for duration of burn time and until airspeed falls below 1.25 mach at sea level.
Yep that’s basically what i’ve said,… so i asked for the quoted part of the Magic-2 being told to be 50G all the time regardless the distance, to the other guy.
Either a bug from the tac view or also maybe a wobbling issue I would have personally guessed. 50G average is quite a lot, the missile might simply oscillate like crazy (especially in custom battles where there are a lot of things for the server to handle)
so i tried again by “torturing” some 530Ds and VT-1s, forcing them to turn.
I don’t have the screenshots right now but i’ll edit the post once i do
VT-1 peaked at 37G (which is in line with the 35 it should be able to do), while the test on 530D was not so successful, since it couldn’t get up to speed and was locked to 20G.
I know there is a wobbling issue and some tacview things, but if i recall correctly, at it’s peak turning, that magic was wobbling between 35-40G and the 76 seen here.
So either they are already 50G in game, or maybe the wobbling effect on this one makes the tacview go crazy, idk.
Overall it seems like SACLOS missiles are much more “stable” (less back and forth in overload value in tacview)
that’s still 20 bots to handle, with their own AI (although I don’t think their AI is actually anything to be afraid of lol), plus the tac view being crazy. As to why SACLOS seem more stable, is I guess because the player input isn’t as crazy as other automatically guided missiles’s seeker inputs, correcting every game tick (yeah I’m a Minecraft player lol). Thus, it’s not surprising they are overall much smoother (but harder to aim for the same overload)
During the good energy state of the missile duh that goes without saying. Ofc Magic 2 won’t be able to pull 50G when it slowed down to less than Mach 1 or more accuraltely Mach 1.25 like Mig said. But apparently someone needed to feel smart.
Just as a precautionary statement, there’s no telling if the devs will agree with the report, or the conclusion of the report. They may reject the report or even decide for themselves what the appropriate burntime should be, although I don’t think they have a good reason to reject the report or it’s conclusions. So with that out of the way, I made a video demonstrating how a Magic 2 with 5.5 seconds burntime would look like in a high off-bore shot, and here’s an example:
