Mirage 2000 Thread : Variants, performance, characteristics and sources

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.

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:


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.

1 Like

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.


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)