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.
coming back to the mig21 video, i ran it at 0.25 speed, and stopped when the missile stopped burning (you can see the dot suddenly disappearing near 0:50)
In 0.25 speed, my chronometer was stopped on the 9s mark, which devided by 4 matches with the 2.2s we currently have…
An other clue in that same video is the trail made by the missile, you can see it suddenly stops as the pilot flies by at 0:53. If the missile was indeed burning for 5.5s, this wouldn’t be possible
Edit : missile still burning at 0:52, argument invalid. Altitude factor is also missing from reasonning.
Larger boost-only motors such as the AIM-54 have thrust that varies significantly based on altitudes and range from 20 to 37 seconds burn time. Likewise, smaller motors would have similar change in thrust or burn time based on altitude and air pressure.
The Magic 2 having a different type of propellant, likely differs from the AIM-54 so there cannot be a direct comparison. What we know is that in some footage, the motor clearly burns for an extended period of time (up to 10+ seconds) and when sped up to normal time, equates to around 5.5s burn time at lower altitudes.
As you saw in the MiG-21 video, higher altitudes yields higher thrust and lower burn time. The short range IR missiles in-game are all generally configured for sea level and the Magic 2 should not be an outlier in this case. The only outlier I can think of is the R-60 series which in real life has a burn time of up to 5 seconds, and in-game I recall it being ~3s. The reason for this is because the R-60 has a slow ramp-up and slow ramp-down of thrust, so Gaijin found the mean thrust value and applied a burn time of 3 seconds to match the correct total impulse and range figures by adjusting drag.
As @DirectSupport has shown, the Magic 2 does not perform as it should kinematically, and the adjustment of the burn time will correct it for a wider range of altitudes and scenarios.
2 Likes
I just double checked the video and you can see a glimpse of the missile still burning at 0:52. So nvm what i said X).
@DirectSupport, you can add those 2 videos to the bug report if you feel like it (M 3E one might be irrelevent since it’s a magic I though)
2 Likes
Ahahahah I was laughing through the entire video the 3 times I watched it.
Considering your test, I guess this change might not be applied. Gaijing might prefer keeping those 10% more range at altitude than those crazy off bore shots
1 Like
Unfortunately it is not conclusive that the missile fired is that of Magic 2 and not an R-60 on the Mig-21. The videos I provided were fired from Super Etendard and Mirage F1, which used Magics.
Also, the missile was still burning at the end, but also parts of it was cut off by the cockpit of the recording pilot but you already stated this.
So although the video proves the missile to still be burning after 2.2 seconds, we have no proof that it is Magic 2 besides what the title of the video says.
Hopefully they’re looking for realistic excuses to bring Python 4 into the game :)))
Then why does it happen in situations where Magic II flies fast and pulls a lot due to enemy plane movement. The higher G loads are tied to enemy mmaneuvering and AOA being achieved by the missile’s fins. If it would be bug, shouldn’t the Magic II be worse but the performance resembles like if it pulled 37, 41, 47, 45 G and so on…
We can but only hope :)
1 Like
Btw, will there any chance that M4K got its drag reduced in the upcoming summer update? I know my opinion only based on guessing, but why is M4K have higher drag than MiG-29? Shouldn’t the Delta Wing configuration makes M4K have less drag at least somewhere lower than MiG-29 but necessarily not lower than F-16C.
Maybe with time, Mirage 2000s were similarly gimped, first rip speed was way lower than now (now: 1512 kph, then: I guess 1365 kph). Also drag was higher, now you can achieve 1500 kph at sea level with 102 % WEP.