No it’s like There is 2 different sound you can hear it. It’s not because of the 2 gun :/.
defas sound like you’re shooting 12 mm
correcting the diameter means you don’t need to correct the drag, since the missile ALREADY has too much drag anyway…
it would just mean a lower drag, and spoiler alert : i already changed the diameter in the mica file in a custom mission, and it barely changes anything.
What we currently have is incorrect.
1 Like
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I think i have a fairly good idea, since i kind of worked on the bug reports made regarding that missile at the time…
The lack of range never really bothered me, because asking for the best close range and one of the best long range at a time where everyone had bugged missiles and F15I and E were not a thing seemed over the top and frankly quite unnecessary.
We’re not in June anymore however, and MICA is going to be the only missile france gets for a while, so it better be correctly modelled for “future proofness sake”, same could be said about R-77, although that one at least has a bunch of sub variants.
To sum up :
- it misses 0.35 mach in top speed when vertically launched
- it lacks speed at 7 and 12km repsectively, once again in a VL scenario, being unable to reach the advertised overload of 50 and 30G repectively at these distance (especially at 12km, where it already is subsonic)
- The loft, which was 20° in the dev server of Danger Zone has been reduced to 5°. To my knwoledge, this is the only missile that received such a treatment, and the reasons for it are still not clear to this day
In the example below, the red AMRAAM was fired at 8000m, 1150 km/h by a Gripen, while my MICA was fired at 8000m, 1350 km/h. Both missile flew relatively straight during most of their flight path, as neither me or my target made any evasive maneuver for quite some time. They only had to pull hard 20s before being before being trashed (missing or self exploding). My MICA stayed high, while the AMRAAM had to come down to thicker air, where i dragged it.
Result ?
Spoiler
(Both missiles highlighted in blue)
Here it goes, 40km for MICA, being basically trash at 400 kph, still 1320 kph for AMRAAM, after 48km and a more aggressive downards evasive move.
You can also notice my other MICA further to the right, where my opponent defended more aggressively, and which was fired AFTER the one highlighted in blue (launched at more than 1400 km/h and 8500m), being already dead after 28 km of travelling
Finally, i would like to point out that these kind of posts :
…bring nothing to the conversation. If you have some counterpoints, say them, and we can figure out what can be misunderstood or what source can make the most sense. Whatever the above post is, is a waste of everyone’s time.
And just for good measure :
4 Likes
I worked on several and provided many of the sources you may have used, the French server enjoyed my consistent testing and evaluation of these materials for some time along with help from @DirectSupport
Most ordnance like R-27ER, R-77, AIM-120, AIM-54 are missing 100+ m/s top speed at medium and high altitude due to a combination of Gaijins poor modeling of air density and their subsequent incorrect modeling of missile drag as a static value. These ordnances are optimized for medium altitudes and thus over perform slightly at sea level and underperform above 5km. The MICA is no exception.
You provided no substance to discuss either and did so without a lot of unnecessary back and forth contradicting my statement without actually providing any real argument. It was just a paragraph summed up as “nuh uh”.
Then you agree with me…
That bug report :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OoskoLXRLTgx
Specifically refers to MICA at low altitude. However by your logic :
…which is not what said bug report, which you tell me you helped work on, is stating.
It specifically refers to the VL (low altitude performances of MICA).
1 Like
Overload capacity is nerfed on TVC missiles intentionally to avoid conditions that cause loss of control, top speed being less than expected is a function of the overall lower drag coefficient provided to meet medium and high altitude range requirements without over performing as much at sea level. What is the maximum launch range at sea level against a 1.2 mach target, as opposed to the subsonic one?
1 Like
Doesn’t matter, in VL configuration the burner at 7 and 12km is off. It just doesn’t have the speed to reach those overload in any shape or form.
If memory serves, it was 900-950 km/h after travelling 12km. At 7km, it was around 1500 km/h.
As for close range, and considering the struggle the devs went through to get it somewhat right, i can’t say i’m dissatisfied, it honestly behave well for me on that front, and i’m in no right to complain when basically no one has an equivalent
Ok so i redid a little test after sniffing around in that custom’s mission code, so i could be sure
Scenario is as follows : Mach 2 Mirage 2000 at 10000m, firing a MICA at a co-altitude f14a, who himself is at Mach 1.8, flying straight at me.
I’m firing when the HUD says i’m in range, and giving the missile a little boost with a 15° manual loft.
Result is as follows :
Spoiler
Firing : (please ignore the aircraft’s speed, it’s still bugged in tacview, made a bug report if you are interested)
Max speed reached by MICA (an impossible Mach 5.1) :
Just under 23km later, the MICA gives his standard behavior (so much drag it feels like hitting a wall) :
And then, a few centi-seconds before self desctruct :
All in all, i think it is safe to assume the MICA can’t reach the advertised 80km range in any scenario, since this one is basically the most favorable. Note that MICA is also advertised at 80km for Rafale, which can’t reach Mach 2.
So it seems like Gaijin weren’t lying with their 50km stat card after all huh
As for the 80km range :
- Armée de l’air’s archive, stating “100km range class”
- French fleet air arm archive, although that one may be less reliable
From the behavior observed, i would say that :
- The MICA probably has too much thrust, seing how abnormally fast it accelerates off the rail compared to the rest, and considering the speeds it can achieve up high (hypersonic ?)
- It also has far too much drag.
From there on :
- Either the thrust figures come from a reliable source, and it means something is seriously wrong with the way atmosphere is modelled in war thunder (i know it’s the case, but i would hope it’s not to this extent)
- Or the thrust is guesswork, in which case an easy way to fix it would be to lower the drag, reduce the diameter, give the lofting back, make sure the missile can reach 80km in a correct scenario, and lower the thrust accordingly.
That way, it would just be what it’s supposed to be : a thrust vectoring AMRAAM
10 Likes
100km class doesn’t mean it should reach 100km,…
it means 50km< x(classified range - MBDA Talks of 80km: check their website) <100km
also, both sites you used can’t be considered as source (unlike MBDA one)
Fleet air arm as already been used several times in the past and been denied.
as for Air Ministry website, it is not possible as a Class of missile, doesn’t give a PRECISE and CLEAR information (here the range)
I know it shouldn’t reach 100km exactly.
Couldn’t find the 80km on MBDA’s website anywhere though, if you have the link, feel free to share
after reviewing MBDA websites, it appears that they have refined the articles,… i can’t find it with explicit ranges anymore.
there should be more reliable sources tho.
MICA-IR was said to be able to reach only 60km (because IR Seeker brings more drag and less refined trajectory)
MICA-EM was said to be able to reach 80km range
(on both many websites seems to agree, but no one quotes the sources of that information - and not being Source reliable for Gaijin)
MICA-EM-NG is said to get a max of 100km range (which was in the objectives of MICA NG program: getting 20km more range)
Similarly MICA-IR-NG gets 80km range
(which many sites seems to agree, but no one quotes the sources of that information - and not being Source reliable for Gaijin)
2 Likes
It does, limiting the overload until burner is off prevents high off boresight launches at low speed and in dogfights. Their only option is to limit G load & control actuator deflection / force to a medium that prevents spinning in those conditions and this affects performance post-burn drastically but allows for tight turn radius in dogfight scenarios.
That i agree with, but it doesn’t cause me any issue tbh
What i mean is : in a VL launch, once the missile travelled 12km (burner is off since several seconds at that point), its speed is 900 km/h, making it unable to turn at 30G
DirectSupport might have more information on that one though, he deduced that from a magic II documentation if memory serves
Thing is the missiles knows when it is off boresight and when it is not,…
The game should refined the model in order to get a condition of launch range, and off-boresight at launch.
Because you’ll not use a MICA-EM for an off-boresight 60km launch.
The problem is how they choosed to model the missile and not the missile itself.
And they can do it as good as they have made the flight model, with 2 modes “Long-range”(don’t allow max pull until being close) / “Short-range”(allow max pull immediately)
I don’t think he deduced it from magic 2 documentation so much as he’s essentially stating that the Magic 2 required 1.25 mach airspeed to pull 50G’s therefore the MICA should require similar? I don’t recall the reasoning for the figure but it would have been translated well to the tech moderators internal report as that would be more comprehensive.
2 Likes
yeah it was something like that.
In the meantime, i did an other test : 12000m, mach 2.1 and 20° loft, MICA still had a bit of energy.
It reached 5400 km/h before self exploding after travelling for 46.5s and 50.8 km. It would probably have had the energy to reach 60, but it self destructed before. I really believe they hard capped it at 50 km for some reason (50.8 to be exact) :
Spoiler
Gaijin hating France is not new