at very close ranges probs but for bvr it should work fine
All MICA variants have Datalink, INS and LOAL; a lock is not necessary before launch.
do we have any sort how guess for the seeker range itself or will gaijin have to pull a magic number
I am not aware of any numbers, maybe m8 @DirectSupport does, but I have doubts that there are official (public) numbers.
If they’re classified, they’ll probably reference similar missiles such as AAM-5 or R-73M.
If they’re not classified, then all good.
shouldn’t the magic not even function on single plane?
Dunno but devs be showing they just do what they want and not what should be done. Because IMO saying devs don’t believe this is proff is subjective aren’t they supposed to be objective regarding those matters?
Dual-plane isn’t simulated in WT, and would have to have simulation code before that’s even possible.
Let’s see how well the missiles perform after they get IRCCM [which is probably within 6 months now].
If they do, they probly wont need more pull if it is as effective as it should be
I’m no aero engineer but dual plane isn’t supposed to be much more complicated than single plane.
They basically already did the hard part when they modeled single plane.
8km rear is way too far for the altitude of most engagements, it will still blow up even with a good 6 oclock shot
BUT it does seem like I underestimated the role of range in the model, at low altitude 500m the 530d can track a pure cold target starting at 2.9km (full strength lock 1.7km), and judging by the lock strength the missile is actually quite resistant to notching below 1.5km. Ridiculously short range, might as well cook the pilot alive with the RDY.
Unfortunately I still lose my ACM-acquired locks instantly if i can’t keep my nose exactly on them so even if the super has some potential at these ranges, I won’t be able to leverage it much
tl:dr : treat the 530d like a radar guided magic 2 especially at low altitude and it might ignore some notching
Most missiles that use dual plane maneuvering irl solely rely on combined plane maneuvering. To model this in-game would be as simple as increasing the G limit to the combined plane setting and leaving it there.
I’ve added further evidence of the multi-element seeker on the Magic 2 that contributes to my IRCCM report.
USSR Report, Military Affairs (proof of declassification, availability for public distribution)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1139707245551169586/image.png
8 Likes
The current use of automated translators is of no use,…
As told earlier, the french used in Military documents isn’t compatible to automated translators, that’s why Native speakers are required.
And Gaijin definetly don’t have those people in devs teams.
Yep, and the document used is a complete manual of Etendard IVM that was firstly shown on the old Etendard IVM (old forum) thread, as i took it, then used it for both CCIP and Radar ^^"
I’ve had no issue translating things directly?
Some terms used aren’t giving you any idea of some systems
For exemple, on Etendard IVM manual “Engins” can meant “Air-Air missiles”(AIM-9B) but also “AGM / ASM” (AS.20/AS.30).
So depending on situation, you can’t be sure of what is what, after a simple translation (Google Trad)
But that exemple is one of the simpliest
Yet there are charts showing all the available ordinance. How would this be harmful or confusing with context?