Fair enough, in any cases current MICA still doesnt have its true capabilities yet which is understandable due to bein one of the best Fox-3 already.
i guess you lack reading comprehension or something. it is a direct comparison when you take two separate reports and use the data to make changes.
Yes. I’m not making the case for any missiles. Both the Aim120 and MICA have substantial reports over their IRL performance. It can easily be argued that the MICA is the missile with the « worst » modeling because of its burn time being twice what it should be (for the same overall deltaV).
But it’s still the best missile fix aren’t currently necessary
Or you just like to claim some empty things based on a single report.
The report you shared doesnt have any direct comparison between MICA and AIM-120, it only mentions seekerhead needs a buff.
Now sure Aım-120 might have better seeker than MICA but the report you posted doesnt mention anything about it.
Next time come with direct comparison or dont waste my time please.
Technically Both the Meteor & ASRAAM “could” (not that they should) be provided to the US F-35B due to the FSD pre-production airframes being used for development being in US service even if it is known to be UK / Client nation only store (and flown by a UK pilot), since it’s only really restriction in Software, and mounting the correct internal adapters & external rails.
Tbh Us doesnt need that kind of configuration.
Their domestic missiles are more than enough.
If you want direct comparaison that report wants 6º for the seeker FOV of the 120, while MICA is 7º.
There has been no reports made for the angle of the MICA IRL, so we can’t compare IRL performances. The 7º angle for the MOCA originally comes from the J band report. Instead of implementing J band, devs simply divided the angle of the seeker by 2, from t14º to 7o, the 14º being the arbitrary default value for all missiles
And why am i not surprised?
Hmm France is cooking new missile :)
1st i didnt make a claim that was empty i gave you a source which was that bug report. you can look at ingame values for the mica. 2nd it doesnt need to mention the mica lol you can take known data for the mica via ingame value or mica bug reports,then use the report as data for the aim120. compare and then make changes. is that so hard todo or does it absolutely need to be compared in the same bug report for you to except it? /s
And what makes you thing ingame MICA values are hundred percent accurate compare to its real life performance sunshine?
Guess someone doesnt know how classified products implementation works in this game.
Only if proper ESM mechanics were implemented, and proper Sensor > Datalink handoff & Contact updating was improved. Which is a lot to imply that Gaijin will faithfully do alongside the F-35’s introduction.
It’s not arbitrary, but based off the HPBW (modeled in game as a cone, e.g no loss of transmitted power towards the edge of the conic section as there should be) of the F-4’s CW illuminator for the Sparrow (“Warning” inset on the bottom right page of the following excerpt).
because the seeker was changed due to a bug report. and not that its 100% but clearly we have data for the two missiles. and according to the aim120 bug report it should be better than the mica currently is ingame. can you maybe think a little?
Never denied that Aım-120’s seeker might be better than MICA’s but one thing for sure you cant just compare two missiles real capabilities by using in game values while their real capabilities are still classified.
You can only make assumptions and educated guesses in this case.
You’re arrogant behaviour is pushing its luck, careful.
i never said ingame preform = anything about IRL performance. not sure where you got that from. and you did deny the seeker being better by saying i wasnt directly comparing the two which is wrong cause i was directly comparing the bug report to the micas ingame seeker value.
Is that so? Seems like you’re the one who has comprehending issues buddy.
Using a F4 CW radar cone for vastly different and more modern ARH missiles is nothing but arbitrary tho
It is at least based on something, with some relevance.
Not that the implementation is all that good anyway considering just how many features and filters of said missile(s) are, simply abstracted or just not modeled at all.
If that would be the case, Gaijin wouldn’t go out of their way to change guidance time and add 360 already and leave it at that for two? months.
A T-90AM ( American moderna ) cap, this save all american 100%
