Mirage 2000 Thread : Variants, performance, characteristics and sources

@k_stepanovich Could you explain why the R-73 and Magic 2 have a 0.75 degree FoV? It appears that this is not correct… at least, the missiles in-game appear to underperform in known scenarios against countermeasures.

In the case of the magic 2, I reported the issue and it was forwarded… but it hasn’t been fixed (patiently waiting)… and there are others with lower FoV so I don’t see it being a game limitation?

Some missiles have a FoV of only 0.05 degrees, some IR air to air launched missiles have as low as 0.5 degrees… why was 0.75 chosen for R-73 and Magic 2?


People have been repeatedly saying that Stepanovich was wrong in regards to his claim about R-73’s IRCCM being superior to that of the AIM-9M’s IRCCM because of how they perform right now. So this is his chance to prove his claim correct by reviewing and implementing your report.


You guys will lose respect and the initiative when you attempt to publicly corner and force a response.

It will appear you are just looking to generate likes and an audience instead of following up on a genuine concern.

Just message him. You will get a much better result.

Immagine that’s what US, Germany and USSR mains do and they still get attention and buffs; now shut.

1 Like

Interesting that PD HDN radars can lock targets in rear aspect with ease now.

1 Like

Is it only tracking, or detection too ?

I will have to give it a try

Good question, seems only tracking when I tried to lock up targets in similar situations.

1 Like

Another bug report regarding the Magic 2’s range will be made. The Magic 2 needs to have its burn-time and drag reconfigured because it’s not matching up with all of the charts. The AIM-7F, R-27ER, and other missiles are correctly configured to both low altitude and high altitude charts, but the Magic 2 is not consistent in that regards. I’ll share more when the report is up.


Technically the devs stated missiles are modeled to match performance from 0-5km alts.

That was their response to the R-27R and ER report and labeled it as “not-a-bug” iirc, and then they subsequently modeled it the next patch after. I’ll have to have it retested.

AIM-7F is correctly configured and performs accordingly at high alt (20,000 feet) according to British manual while being configured for the AIM-7F SAC low-alt chart which stated the burntime. Any concerns that the game does not account for altitude differences is not accurate, burntime/drag/acceleration would be what is responsible for any discrepancies. Anything more and you overcomplicate it more than necessary.

Magic 2 missile is modeled incorrectly.

The goal here is to have the Magic 2’s range physics reworked. If my conclusions are correct, the Magic 2 should have increased burntime, lower acceleration, and increased range.


Shouldn’t you be making a separate report for the burn time ?

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.


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