The plane would be fine as I said though at 11.3, since its FM is competitive with gen3s (much so), and magic 1s are still good missiles… 530F would also, again, still secure the not that uncommon kill because if you use them as I describe, they DO work.
Make that 11.0, and folder the F1CT with it. The latter can stay at 12.0 with Magic 2s because at least it has a usable rwr
what i don t like about your solution is that it would gate keep the 530F to either the 12.0 br range or hide it beind a paywall if you want to play them at a more favorable br for them. i would love to get an early variants that could feel that gap, but as for now, with only two plane in the tree having a early modele with 530F and magic 1 and 1 modele with magic 2 would feel good enough as for now. I would love to get a third one with only early weapon kit and less flares that would feel more at home in the 10.7 11.0 br range but right now, it won t help to close the gap in the tree as there is right now the dutch F104
1 Like
I regret to inform you that is false, the Magic 1 has superior autopilot values across the board
PL-5B
Magic 1
For reference, lower PID values mean the missile maneuvers more aggressively and efficiently, with higher values causing the missile to use less of it’s G loading and instead choosing to load over a greater period of time, this commonly takes place in the likes of the AIM-54 or other extremely long range AAMs which are artificially limited by their autopilot shortly after launch as a hacky way to elongate their range.
Lower guidance warmup delay, superior track rate, superior maximum launch angle, and a ever so slightly larger seeker FOV, which, due to it’s band preference is a better thing. The only non-band guidance benefit the PL-5B has over the Magic 1 is it’s maximum track angle which is 10 degrees larger.
PL-5B
Magic 1
Both missiles happen to be nearly identical when it comes to band preference, with the only difference being the PL-5B’s minor preference for countermeasures which, incedently is a negative.
If you in any way, shape for form think the current AIM-9J is somehow relevant in modern WT than I don’t think you can be saved sadly. The original 9J before it’s nerfs, maybe, but as it stands right now the J is a worse 9G in every conceivable way and if you somehow think a 18G missile with a vastly inferior seeker is somehow equivalent to a 35G missile that can target aircraft in AB out to 2 miles you need to get your head checked.
2 Likes
I regret to inform you that the performance advantaje of the pl5b makes it better better than the magic 1, saying that it has a “better” autopilot when it actually does such a little difference gameplaywise, as this values are nowhere even close to the difference between the “long range” seekers
First where do you even get the pl5b has a “ever so slightly larger FOV”, it is literally 2.4 which is smaller than the magic 1’s 2,5.
Also which band are you even talking about because they have the exact same bands.
r27 Et
Sedjid
54
Fakour
Also not such a great example, their difference are an order of magnitude higher than the other missieles.
The aim 9J is still a quite decent rear aspect missiles, also the aim 9J isnt really worse than the aim9g they have to be used in different scenarios, close up it is far better, following what you deem to be an advantage, the it has a MUCH better autopilot, as the number is smaller…
Would i said that the aim 9J is overall better than the aim 9G, no it isnt simply because this autopilot argument of yours doesnt actually changes much in practice, however thing like range does.
the seeker is pretty much the same, and you can still do that with the aim 9j, just closer due to the lower acceleration, also the seeker is pretty much the same as the magic 1
Also you seem to forget about a very important part of the missiles, it raw performance, where the pl5b demolish the magic 1 and although the pl5b have a higher CxK the magic 1 is still draggier due to the larger diameter.
So in one hand you have a missile with nearly the same seeker, in your opinion a better autopilot, better launch angles and shoter seeker activation time while on the other hand you have a missiles with much better range, acceleration, an a much lower proximity fuze activation time and larger proximity fuze radius, which actually allows the pl5b to be able to do some all aspect shots in some situations, good luck doing that with the 1.8s delay.
Btw actually play the both of them and then you can come back with the insane nitpicking.
3 Likes
Ah I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about try to formulate arguments.
Autopilot values are second only to max fin AOA and acceleration values in governing the maneuverability of a missile, the fact that you so proudly state otherwise and claim to be knowledgeable about the subject is seriously hilarious. Please, put the 54’s PID values and guidance ramp up on either of the magics and come back and tell me how terrible it feels to use after that.
Little values changes in the autopilot values can cause massive differences in performance, this is why the autopilot values between the navywiders and the 9J /P is actually noticeable beyond it’s fin acceleration limitations, navywinders attempt to pull less than the 9J/P by a considerable amount but end up successfully pulling less due to having inferior maximum lateral acceleration values, meaning the 9J and P end up jinking themselves after motor burnout trying to track targets, something the navywinders don’t do.
I see that English is hard for you, given you read a line referring to the magic 1 and somehow thought it was for the PL-5B when I literally began talking about the PL-5B in the next sentence and how it lacks everything I stated was prior.
Interesting, prior to this the Magic 1 had a lower range band 2 detection. I wonder what made gaijin choose to simply make them the same and tweak the max range, my mistake.
Although this does mean that they are functionally identical when it comes to detecting countermeasures and targets now.
Dunno what you wanted to prove here since yes, the autopilot values are higher which proves my point.
Except it fails to use it better due to it’s lackluster fin performance compared to the navywinders due to it’s lower lateral acceleration. I should note however that such is the case up to a point, said point as if you have high lateral acceleration but functionally no fin AOA, your missile will be sluggish solely due to it’s inability to apply all that fin AOA.
This is one of the reasons why the PL-5B will inherently suffer compared to the Magic 1 as it has a amazing lateral acceleration maximum, but nearly the same fin AOA as the 9G, a missile with far less lateral acceleration and an acceptable fin AOA for that lateral acceleration.
This means that the PL-5B can hold a turn well, but suffers against targets that make precise snap maneuvers, meanwhile, the Magic 1 cares not as it’s max fin AOA is functionally unmatched among the non-all aspect AAMs.
In a sense, the 9J and P will underperform against most targets a navywinder will hit due to it’s inability to fully apply it’s G loading, while the J and P will be able to hit a snap rolling target slightly easier than a navywinder, meanwhile a Magic 1 will outperform all other missiles mentioned here at all ranges and aspects in guidance bar sheer pull on the PL-5B.
That difference is quite minor compared to the likes of a navywinder vs J/P, primarily due to the similarities in specific impulse. Yes, it is draggier, but its not a death sentence unlike the winder difference.
To that same end, another equalizer is the fact that both missiles sport a identical burn time, one of the reasons why the navywinders sustain their performance so well is due to that elongated burn, as, any maneuver made by the missile is compensated by the ongoing burn.
Still far less than the likes of the navywinders and still far closer to the magic 1, it is a far smaller difference than you make it out to be.
I have used both navywiders and 9J/Ps in headons with little issue and both sport the same 1.8 second delay and the 5 meter proximity fuse, this sounds like a skill issue as if you are needing milliseconds of activation you should be using guns by that point. On the side of the fuse range, I’ve had larger zoned missiles spark more than I’d care to admit, I’m looking at you AIM-9B.
I have, I love my A-5C and it’s Magic 1s, they are some of my favorite missiles to use due to how reliable they are compared to other options at the BR range, by comparison my time messing around with the J-7D when it was announced left me thoroughly unimpressed with it’s PL-5B loadout, the PL-7s were nice though. Sadly though I forgot about the aircraft until the jeff arrived and have let it fade into obscurity.
1 Like
IMO both Mirage F1Cs should be 11.7. They are about as dog water to me as the British phantoms. But unlike the brit phantoms at least the mirages have good missiles.
Buddy again, the basing your hole argument about the autopilot doesnt shows actually anything, youre giving far too much weight to it.
The aim 9j still have a close maximun lateral acceleration and higher fin AOA, since they have overally similar values the autopilot should actually shows more of a difference, and it doesnt, so your hole autopilot value playing such an extreme role doesnt hold up.
The maximun AOA only really plays an impactfull role at lower speed maneuvers, where the missile can actually use high AOA without getting into the maximun lateral acceleration limits, on the case of the pl5B this makes little difference as accelerates so fast
This sounds like a false equivalence to me, the aim 9J have much lower acceleration… it is even more of a case on the aim 9J
Exept you actually havent use both missiles, and you have a grand total of 7 matches on the A-5C and none with any pl5b also you have completely fail to show that the magic 1 is actually an equivalent to the aim 9L
Also i am not the only one that holds the pl5b higher, sure the is likely one of the best at that br, but that doesnt make it better than the pl5b.
1 Like
No it really shouldn’t
1 the mirage F1C / F1 200 are actually fairly decent platforms since they buffed them years ago.
-
for all intents and purposes it can fire them
-
we need decompression, even with magic 1s if this went to 11.3 it would shithouse lobbies due to the radar set (which is decent)
Good FM, and overall performance.
Like should we remove aim7F from the F4S and make it 11.3? answers no.
Magic Is have the same flight performance as the Magic IIs, they’re hands-down the best rear-aspect missiles (PL-5B close second). The F1C is a fast and decently agile aircraft, with an MTI radar that wasn’t nerfed like the MiG-23s, alright SARH missiles (good performance, bad seeker), and quite substantial countermeasures count. It’d be quite good for 11.3 without Magic IIs. It’d struggle against 12.3s of course but that’s an issue of those 12.3s needing to move up, not the F1C being put at a BR where it can face 9.7s where some aircraft haven’t any missiles nor countermeasures.
1 Like
I completely agree.
The F1C is weirdly placed in the current matchmaking, it has 2 OP missiles for the BR and top speed, but everything else is subpar or straight up bad.
Putting it lower in BR with magic 1s which are still among the best non IRCCM missiles will make the F1C more interesting to play.
Currently, it’s a straight 2 free kill loadout regardless of skill, but then you’re pretty useless. This is bad for balancing IMHO. It’s almost as bad as when the premium A-10/su-25 faced flareless jets on the regular basis.
1 Like
It would definitely not shithouse the lobbies. It’s FM would be decent at best. The radar would be great, but the missiles would be average at best, still being CW.
The F1C also lost one missile in its Max loadout (from 5 with the central point to 4), so at 4 max missiles, it would definitely not be the biggest threat around.
It’s two main advantages would be countermeasure number and radar awareness, which is not out of the ordinary in any means
1 Like
Even with magic ones it would wreck lobbies mate act like access to two magic ones and at least 2 530Fs wouldnt cause mayhem at 11.3 , alongside a good fm and astromical counter measure count is just being nieve
Magic 2 (2̶ f̶r̶e̶e̶ k̶i̶l̶l̶s̶)
Dl you realize that at 10.3, the Mirage III E already has access to 2 magic 1s, and one radar missile, that while definitely not as good as the 530F, still makes it carry 3 missiles ?.
At 11.0 you already see planes like the F4E carrying 4 AIM7D, each more usable than the R530F, and that’s without counting the other 4 9P, which while worse than the magic 1, grants the plane 2 times as much missiles. The Mirage F1 also is at best comparable to earlier MiG 23 and F4E, which just happen to sit at the same BR.
The mig23MF for example also happen to use a MTI radar at 11.0 and fires R23, which are very comparable to the R530F currently in game , with R60MK which are all aspect missiles. So I would at least compare them to magic 1s even if their use case is completely different. The Mirage F1 is also very comparable to the MiG 23 in flight performance.
The Mirage F1C at 11.0 with just magic 1 would in absolutely no way overpower the BR when other aircraft’s like the MiG 23 and F4E currently sit.
1 Like
It also is a worse platform with a worse radar and technically worse radar missile.
The f1 c also has access to better ground strike as well can have 2 IR missiles and 3 radar missiles
It has access to aim7E-2 and the f4e arguably should be 11.7
As well as this the F1 C /200 is an arguably better platform.
F4e also has no mti/pd radar and access to only aim9Js which are not anywhere near as good as even magic 1s.
The mig23M is 11.0 and it shows, its only real bonus is the r60s at 11.0.
The f4e ive already addressed above.
The mig23M /MF is a far worse FM / platform the MTI is also far more finicky as it cannot just be turned on like the mirage F1Cs can.
As well as this R23 isnt really comparable to the 530F as it is a weaker missile overall, especially in sim.
The mig23 has far inferior retetion and sustained rate.
The MLD and MLA have a more comparable FM and are 11.7 due to the r24s.
Having used all of the planes youre talking about extensively the mirage f1 beats them all outwith missile perfromance, even with magic 1s it would beat them all relatively easily.
Edit: can test it if youd like i can use the f1 with the 3 radar missiles , and 2 magic 1s if youd like and show you.
1 Like
As apparently the only person happy with where the f1C is at present, I’ll add my two cents.
With recent-ish changes to radar, the 530F does start to reject chaff occasionally. I found this to be the case alongside a friend when we wanted to test if they were made useful by the changes. The flight model is completely adequate for the BR, couple this with magic 2s and you can do pretty alright for yourself.
1 Like
Its an actually good plane for its br, sure the release.fm and 530s were ass but its no longer that same platform and it does magic (haha) where it is
It’s a perfectly acceptable aircraft currently. But it’d be more well-rounded at 11.3 without Magic IIs. France lacks any 11.x fighters, and really they haven’t anything between 10.7 and 12.0 considering how poorly the F-104Gs perform. Moving it down would fill that BR gap, and the F1CT (with its better RWR and countermeasures) would still be available for 12.0.
1 Like
He feels great in ASB. Probably the best aircraft on the 11.7
Spoiler
