Thing is that this way of working is deeply wrong as there is visual proof that it’s not how the missile works.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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)
1 Like
It doesn’t, it is just a bug of the tac view.
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.
1 Like
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)
I’ll see if i can post videos of all those tests
1 Like
that one was empty, i created it just to mess around with the tacview, and it was filled with 20 bots or so
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)
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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:
12 Likes
You basically said
If you wanna discuss specified points, be precise.
It’s not being smart, or being dumb,… it’s about being precise.
Or you’re gonna handle the thousands of newbs who saw your post, and then told them to read in between lines maybe?
“All times” have a meaning, that is different from what you “wanted” to say,… so BE PRECISE
Can y’all just not reply at all if it’s solely to argue semantics. The points don’t matter anyway unless gaijin is using them as basis for a report.
2 Likes
on a side note : mirage IIIE testing a magic I :
you can see the burn lasts at least 4s between 0:50 and 0:54 i the video :
What’s weird though, is that the acceleration doesn’t seem to match sometimes. Like this magic II that seem to accelerate roughly like in game (fired near 0:48) :
That, and the fact that french missiles usually tend to be high acceleration/speed - low burn time in their respective categories (Mistral vs Stinger, Aster vs SM-2, MICA vs AMRAAM).
I don’t really know what to make of it at the end of the day. Magic 2 in game might already be correct when it comes do burn time tbh.
Anyhow and assuming none of the videos above are slowed down, there’s something i have a hard time to understand. The acceleration in the 2 videos just don’t match.
It’s not, the report is accurate it should be at least 4s burn time. It is a completely new motor from the Magic 1 type as well, they should not necessarily be similar.
High alt launches like seen on the MiG-21 are expected to have significantly higher thrust and lower drag, acceleration appears to be much higher. The video also is not slowed down.
is there any written mention of the magic II burn time ? Couldn’t find anything, except for the blog gaijin used to get the current 2.2s
Matra quoted the total impulse for sea level but not the burn time.