Nah the non-manoeuvring range is accurate now, that was a duplicate report.
Oh they fixed it? The report is still open and bug reporter still says it wasnt fixed as of 2 months ago
well last i checked it matches the firing data, only reason it didnt was because customs and software like statshark had a M5.05 limit. This limit isn’t in the full game.
Pretty sure amraam received changes since that report no?
Yeah i checked things last october.
K so rechecked (on SS)
First shot:
Launch Aircraft: 15,000 ft / Mach 0.8
Target Aircraft: 500 ft / Mach 0.76
Expected launch range: 64km
Actual launch range (bug report): 54km
Actual launch range (SS): ~55.5km
Timeout miss, missile peak speed is a touch over M3.0, never close to M5.0 limit you stated, so its irrelevant.
Spoiler
Shot 2:
Launch Aircraft: 5,000 ft / Mach 0.9
Target Aircraft: 500 ft / Mach 0.9
Expected Launch Range: 57.5 km
Actual launch range (bug report): 52.5km
Actual launch range (SS): ~55.5km
Spoiler
Atleast according to SS, both test shots from the bug reports are still missing. SS actually seems to claim the ranges are better than they were when tested, possibly due to no netcode missile instability draining energy or a buff I’m not aware of, but afaik, the bug report is still valid and the AIM-120A is still underperforming in range rather substantially.
3 Likes
Interesting, i thought these ones were fixed, thanks for the fact check
1 Like
The M5 limit was because original testing showed amraam severely underperformed at high speed/altitudes.
Yeah not sure if that part of its still underperforming in that aspect, but at this point this is pretty off topic.
1 Like
Anyone know max deflection of tvc for mica irl? I wonder if it’s underperforming in game like the r-73 (4 instead of 12)
Spoiler
Spoiler
9 Likes
so at the end of the day is the MICA under or overpreforming or mix of both, or little more of one and less of the other?
There’s two reports on the MICA so far. These are the proposed changes in total, some people believe it’ll be a nerf but you make up your mind:
- Burntime reduced: 6.7 seconds => 3.5 seconds
- Motor delta-v reduced: ~1,100m/s => ~1,000m/s
- Turn rate increased: ~60 deg/s => ~100 deg/s
- Configure MICA’s range to MICA VL performance standards (50G at 7km, 30G at 12km and 20km overall range).
What you have at the end of the day then is the MICA having a slightly reduced motor delta-v which is compensated in turn with slightly reduced drag in order to make sure that the end-ranges are met. It is also the case that the MICA will have much quicker acceleration due to burntime being reduced by more than half (6.7 seconds => 3.5 seconds). Also the turn performance would have to be increased up from its current performance.
9 Likes
VL mica stats would mean matching impulse in those conditions, likely reducing medium and high altitude performance. If you wanted a realistic air to air mica comparable to peers you’d want them to enhance thrust maybe 10% to match medium alt impulse over the metrics for VL mica.
so mica would have 3.5 booster of 28000kn ?
Somewhere around that. While nothing provable, there’s a graph of the motor thrust with thrust in the Y axis and time in the X axis. While there’s is no numbers on the axis, there are notches, and the average thrust is slightly below what is believed to be the 30kN mark. Plus deltaV calculations put it around that value as well so it checks out
2 Likes
it doesn’t add up because mica performance at 7km is 50g with thrust vector but with this 3.5 booster it wouldn’t be able to do that
That’s something I’ll have to think about and contend with, good point.
The MICA is capable of doing 50G provided it has enough speed even without having thrust-vectoring. The missile is capable of greater than 50G in its initial high speed configuration.
4 Likes
I’ll consider less burn time as buff since it will make the missile diamond faster to fade itself in. It will force everyone to pay super attention to their RWR if they don’t want to get wacked by MICA.
1 Like