Please please please stop referencing DCS for realistic looks at things… they think the AIM-120A has a boost mode of 6 seconds for example… followed up by a 5s sustainer… when video shows that’s not remotely possible lol
We don’t truly know that the missile requires a go-active command. It is entirely possible with the absence of mid-course data from the AWG-9 it can begin searching or choose to lock a target of it’s own accord within 10 something nautical miles.
It is saying “none” was better in the highlighted portion… is he saying DCS and documents he has are the only good source on AIM-54 guidance? If so, that is why I responded stating DCS is not a valid (and sometimes quite inaccurate) source.
As for people that sources DCS just a quick reminder even if the game is a simulator the planes are mostly submiotted by the community teams that works on them yes they work, for most of them with official organisms but when they want to add somethjing and can’t access the required data they still immagine stats which is why in DCS Magic 2 even if performing better then in WarThunder is still far frome performing as good as in real life because in DCS a Magic 2 can be evaded in rear shot without having to make too sharp maneuvers while a Magic 2 is supposedly unbeatable in a rear shot thanks to it’s seeker heat targets scanning and treatment.
Bro every source that is certified true is instantly false because gaijin don’t seem to bother contacting real archvists and only make Russian USSR biased documents suffice to prove something true. There ya have it.
Also I’m concerned about every aspect of the missile here IRCCM was the only thing i knew for sure DCS had wrong to make DCS quoters understand DCS isn’t accurate as well.
I don’t believe in their google docs/excels or wathever it is about missiles true stats. Becaus in these files missiles seem to be idealized and not reflecting anything from how it behaves in game sorry. Except if they really changed the missile and therefore it’s stat card. I know stat cards aren’t a reliable source too but i think there is more thruth in stat card than in the excels.
Also Magic 2 problem isn’t range for me it’s its interception capabilities that matter because it isn’t named Missile Autoguidé d’Interception, de Combat et d’Autodéfense for nothing. Intercepting isn’t a matter of range but of maneuverability and countermeasure resistance/rejection.
And yes best CAS is a M2000 well it won’t change the moment AASM/Hammer bombs will be added France will be an almost undefeatable CAS nation.
Well, it’s France’s fault for testing range at 10,000 meters in altitude against a target moving at the same speed as the launch platform.
IRCCM is already being worked on, and Magic 2 has all of the maneuverability it can get in WT until base game systems have updated simulations added.
Such as dual plane simulation, which isn’t a feature thus Magic 2 is limited to it’s real 35g single plane G load.
Working code can’t be instantly created after all, we need patience.
Excuse me sir they had more than 4 updates to work on dual plane simulation for missiles that are to come but they preferred working on shitty economic changes that made community go RIOT and now have to take time in correcting all the shit that made WT a toxic not funny grinding game.