The FM is made according to all data the developers had. Naturally they are tweaked and refined over time. However If you believe its incorrect, please submit a report with your evidence here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
Unfortunately it doesn't address any of the conflicts that exist between the current sources that we have already outlined in detail at this stage and why the figure of 35G is still the most reliable to accept. Given we know the constructional and technical differences between Magic 1 and 2. Being a secondary source and providing no new material, this souce doesn't change that sadly.
This is incorrect. We are not limiting this missile for "balance" reasons. If we were, quite simply we would just say this. As its been the case for other missiles (for example PARS 3) where we have had to artificially downgrade its performance in order to have it in game in some capacity. This isn't the case for Magic 2.
We have used the G overload value mentioned in multiple sources for the Magic 2, as well as based on all currently acquired or submitted information so far via reports on Magic 2.
The developers have taken into consideration all sources so far submitted and conducted re-reviews into what we already had. We dont dispute that some sources make a claim of 50G. However based on the fact that others directly claim 35G as well as the fact that the currently known differences both structurally and technologically between Magic 1 and 2, as well as all information we have from other missiles in the period, there is currently nothing to actually show or suggest the sources that claim 50G are fully correct. So the value of 35G also stated in multiple sources for the Magic 2 was selected as the most realistic and accurate until those conflicts and clear information gaps can be concluded.
There is currently no concreate evidence to support your claim that "sensors and informatic limitation" are what allowed the Magic 2 to pull 50G. If there was clear written source based information that said that, it can be passed and taken into consideration. But there currently isn't. So far we have seen some sources that conflict Magic 2 for MICA values and others that directly confirm that the Range, Gimbal and Sensitive were the only differences between Magic 1 and 2, not manoeuvring overload:
So I would ask that you please keep the discussion at hand constructive rather than making false claims about why the missile is why it is, when we have explained the situation now several times and are in fact not trying to mislead anyone. But basing the missile on all available and known information that can be fully supported.
If something was done for balance, we would simply say so. We welcome any further sources or confirmatory information on the matter.
AIM-9L has a 30G overload in game, so the 35G of Magic 2 is already better and even by these sources, is "superior" in that regard.
Magic 2 also already has improved flare resistance in game over the Magic 1.
Even from the quotes themselves, they say nothing about the improved electronics leading to the ability to pull 50Gs:
So again, these sources do not confirm or change anything mentioned in the previous post.
Nobody has submitted a valid report with material showing the current version is incorrect. So there is no news of any changes as nothing is currently believed to be incorrect.
It has already been answered as you can see in the comments. They were also all mostly wiki or unsupported sites.
Hello.
Firstly this is an unoffical website, as stated by them:
Secondly, the 50G figure is likely the combined plane figure, as has already been established. There simply is not enough evidence to support how the missile would achieve 50G overload.
Better to report any issue and make them known.
So far there's one report and nothing evidence / source wise being posted in this thread to show much is wrong.
We fully appriecate there may be issues, but so far nothing has been provided to show anything is massively wrong and nowhere near the "30/40" reports you claim that are wrong with the machine.
Any reports will be dealt with, but lets please keep things realistic and not blown out of proportion when talking about things. It doesn't help anyone.
So what can we do about that?
We use the best material possible that's publicly available. Claiming somethings wrong but then being unable to provide any evidence for it because "its secret" means we cant do much with that.
If people wish to report valid issues with avalable material, we will always act on that. But we can do nothing with vague statements.
The current Mirage 2000D did not have the CC422 gunpod that was suggested by some that it should have, which is actually part of RMV modernisation upgrade program and is a more advanced overall package. There is however another gunpod we are investigating for the current Mirage in the future.
Thank you. It was good thank you. Happy new year for all.
If its possible to make it happen, then it may be from the next major.
We don't rule out future Mirage variants.
CC630
Your thread was not published as you did not read and follow the suggestions guidelines:
Most importantly, the last point:
Further to that, your topic was quiet literally just the image you posted here and one line. We ask that suggestions at least have some substance material.
Secondly, we have already mentioned that drop tanks will be expanded upon in future updates for other vehicles. The feature just launched with the new vehicles added this major and many others are set to receive them over time. Much like custom loadouts, we will update more and more every major update.
Unfortunately we cannot individually message every rejected suggestion with an explanation every time. There are too many invalid suggestions that dont follow the rules. Its also explained in the rules that any suggestions that do not follow them will not be approved:
Most is the Devs are currently on NY holidays.
Please submit a report with your sources. Spam tagging me multiple times in different topics and writing in caps does not mean anything will happen faster.
However the source attached does not prove the aircraft cannot mount and use 530D.
It physically cannot mount 4 x 530Ds. There is no evidence of this being a possible loadout on the 5F.
Evidence has already been posted that the aircrafts radar was capable in the thread some pages back.
You are welcome to submit any materials via reports if you believe it cannot.
MICA = / = 530D.
530D cannot 1:1 fit where MICA is present. There is no evidence of that ever being any possible loadout on a Mirage. Whereas we know quite clear 2 x 530D is.
What about it? Im not sure of the question here.
Its radar will be the RDY and as always, all new vehicles typically have placeholder radars on dev.
Its not possible for the aircraft to mount 6 missiles that don't involve MICA. As we have already said, its too advanced for the game currently and wont be coming right now.
Evidence has already been posted in the thread:
We have many aircraft with weaponry that they did not carry in service, but could in game. This is not a new concept.
As we have explained multiple times now. MICA is too advanced for the game currently and will not be coming right now. It will be added when the game is ready. But for the meantime, 530D is an entirely possible missile for the aircraft to carry.
Same reason as above, the missile is too advanced currently.
When similar levels of missiles are present for nations. The missile is a modern advanced missile system, the kind we are not close to at all right now.
Hello
We did not say this was our reference or only reference. If you wish to submit material for consideration, please free free to make a report: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/2183-dev-server-bug-reports/
Just to be clear, it physically cannot fit 6 missiles, without involving MICA. Which as we have explained, its too soon for currently.
It has the maximum amount of missiles its possible for it to carry.
Unfortunately this is not the case.
We have explained why we have chosen to make the Mirage 5F the way we have here:
So far, no information has been submitted via a proper report to prove any of that is incorrect. Therefor, if you believe it is, we welcome any sourced reports to be submitted for the developers consideration.
We do not plan to add Magic 2 to these aircraft as this would result in a BR increase. All of these aircraft are currently capable at their respective BRs without the need for changes.
If you have material to support this claim, you are entirely free to submit a suggestion for it.
Its not a bug. You are suggesting Mirage III was capable of the missile, which you are free to do if you want to submit materials for consideration. But its not a bug.
I was responding to exactly what you said. You are confusing two different matters:
This is a suggestion. Not a bug.
Hello
There is no evidence of this being a possible configuration on the aircraft. 530D cannot simply be mounted in all the same positions as MICA.
You are welcome to submit any evidence you have on this being possible if you wish to suggest it. But its not under consideration currently.
Hello
Please be sure to report any suspected issues with your evidence here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder
We can then review them for investigation.
The MiG-29 blog was in response to feedback from the wider community regarding concerns and issues with the aircraft. This was also due to what was prepared and known in terms of internal tests with the R-27ER missile before the aircraft even released.
Currently, we have a total of 6 forwarded reports open on the Mirage 2000-5F. All of which are being investigated.
Regarding the report "RDY radar has missing air to air and air to ground modes", the developers have already added Velocity search mode. Other modes are not so useful or are too complex for the current radar implementation in the game. As such, its possible they may be expanded in the future.
As we have already previously mentioned, the suggestion to include a HMS is being reviewed. Similarly, the matter of the CM dispenser model is under review.
For battle rating, there has not been sufficient enough data sample or post patch time period to properly access if a change is required.
The developers will monitor and follow the situation of the aircraft, as well any reports passed.
The issues and reports on the Super 530D and Magic are separate from the aircraft itself. They each require further review, investigation and confirmation of the materials to ensure they are properly correct and implemented. Some of which you mentioned were only reported a week ago (Magic roll) and require further study and source confirmation. So there was no possibility of them being implemented so quickly.
Regarding the Mirage 2000C-S5, it too was regularly worked on. We now only have 2 reports open regarding that aircraft at this time. All others have been fixed or resolved. Many were done before its release and the rest in the weeks and months after. The same can be said for the Mirage 2000-5F. 18 were resolved to this point, with just the 6 I mentioned above outstanding.
Magic 2 currently has one of the highest flare resistances in game. So far, no sources have been submitted to show that it should be more / less.
Players have been asking for the Python 3 since the release of the Kfir and since the J-8 came and have had to wait all this time for it. So to be clear, the addition of Python 3 / PL-8 was not because some people had to "cry one day". The missiles have been requested and planned for over a year.
Both missiles for the MiG-23M and MiG-29 were already prepared and ready in case of balancing concerns / feedback. They were indeed added mid patche because they were ready to go.
There is no such missile to introduce for the Mirage 2000-5F. The MICA family is too advanced for the game currently and will not be coming anytime soon in the current plans.
There are no other missiles to be added for the 2000-5F other than MICA. Which as previously explained, are too advanced.
We dont simply just add range or speed to missiles to balance them. They are all configured historically.
Changes are made based on evidence from reports. So if its suspected to be incorrect, it can be reported and then investigated.
Stormshadow is a long range cruise missile. Such weapons are not planned anytime soon for any aircraft.
Please submit any valid evidence you have of it being incorrect if you suspect it is. Currently we have no forwarded reports on this. So its not being investigated.
devtrackers.gg