RDY radar got a bunch of new changes, hopefully the radar bugs are fixed.
New update to dev server?
Yes, a bunch of RDY and RDI radar changes. No medium ARH missiles got changed, so nothing new on that front.
1 Like
Do we have any new radar modes? Or just changes to existing ones?
Tws all aspect?
No new radar modes, and no new actual changes now that I looked through it. They simply renamed a bunch of codes and reformatted the files. It didn’t lead to any radar bug fixes. So the changes are effectively nothing.
What happened to the report for all-aspect TWS on the RDY?
Also, did the Mirage ever have a HMD similar to that of the F-16C or was it just a sight like currently modelled?
Work on the all-aspect TWS is on hold until they can implement automatic waveform management (which is where the radar will decide what radar modes is best for you).
Yes, will be reported today.
1 Like
MICA can hit it’s topspeed of Mach 4.5 like it should, all that’s left for them to do is fix the instability of the missile.
In terms of range, what is the MICA comparable to?
I heard its more in line with the AIM-120C
1 Like
The range should be a bit worse than the new motor on the AIM-120C, but still maintaining better maneuverability, so the MICA EM should equal AIM-120C in overall performance.
However MICA EM should probably be better than AIM-120A in range, acceleration, and maneuverability, I’ll wait until both missiles drop in June to see how they do.
3 Likes
Is the automatic waveform management already being modelled in the dev server?
1 Like
Not yet I think, but it seems they may be laying the ground work for it since the radar has been getting reformatted completely, lots of changes.
1 Like
Ah alright, im hoping they give the Mirage its TWS PD, would be very helpful once the ARH MRAAM’s eventually get added to wt
Not so sure it is superior to AIM-120A in range, maybe… but not close to AIM-120C-5. C-5 also has high angle off-boresight launching and such… can chase down targets after tight 180° turns where MICA won’t be able to chase… I think it’s overall superior outside of a close-in dogfight.
1 Like
In regards to the HMS, would it be possible to see an image or source of that? I havent actually seen a picture or layout of it.
If the AIM-120A is correct in-game in regards to range, then it should be superior as shown in Jaek’s video. MICA’s range, speed is all about done, just some bug fixing is needed since its BVR capability is hindered by the extreme wobbliness and random backflips it does.
The MICA currently can do this in-game chasing evading targets 15km away after an off-boresight launch. I should also note that the MICA currently has too high of a guidance delay at 0.3 seconds and should be reduced down to more of a 0.15 second guidance delay like that of the R-73, this would allow it to save even more energy while running down targets. Here are 2 examples in one clip.
You’re aware of the open reports showing it is nearly 50% short of rear aspect performance.
C-5 should be able to hit a target 15-20km behind the launch aircraft as it’s headed away depending on other conditions.
Yes, and perhaps it’ll end up being more in range, if the reports are implemented. So I’ll have to be cautious in my claims of the range comparison.
A lack of TVC means that it’s not able to reduce the amount of time that it’s turning. MICA and R-73 are able to spend less time turning around, to use the rest of the burn time/acceleration to chase down the target, whereas the AIM-120 would spend more time in a turn circle.
6 Likes
This isn’t true. The C-5 is statically unstable on launch and becomes more stable as propellant burns. It is able to make extremely tight turn radius off the rail from low speeds… especially considering the MICA wouldn’t be able to do due to the higher acceleration and similar maximum overload.
There are conditions the TVC is superior, but the AMRAAMs static stability and lifting body features mitigate these quite well in a number of scenarios.