Galinette

The bug is confirmed, but I believe this is a general DCS issue. Should be tested with other aircraft.

Here is the explanation for the elastic limit. On the real jet, when you pull the stick, you feel a stop at a certain point that commands 9g. It's the "elastic limit". The stick force feeling is rather linear between neutral and the elastic limit. If you pull much harder (about 40kg), it's possible to move the stick beyond that point for about 20% more travel range, up to a "hard" limit that corresponds to 11g. The use case is emergency only. You can't exceed 9g inadvertently due to the force profile. Now there are three possible settings to simulate this in DCS, and a slider. Clamp : when the bind isn't pressed, pulling beyond the elastic limit position will do nothing, it will stay at 9g. To exceed, you need to press the bind and go beyond the elastic limit axis value. Scale : when the bind isn't pressed, the full stick range controls up to 9g. When pressed, the full stick range controls up to 11g Disable : your stick always controls the full 11g range. It's not recommended unless you have a modified stick with a special force profile that mimics the elastic limit, as you want to be able to stop at 9g in normal conditions. This is doable with custom Virpil cams (I have one) Beside this, a slider allows adjusting the elastic limit position on axis. Default settings are good for normal use. You will need to bind the "Elastic limit" command to go beyond 9g

In the mean time, I managed to do the no engine landing. 30000ft, 40NM, 100% fuel. Glide at 280kts (needle indicator, not DCS). Level at 5000ft and slow to 230kts, pitch down with airbrakes, flare and land at 200kts. Burnt a tire and touched the grass at 30kts. It just works

Hi What doesn't make sense is messing up a FM set up around a LOT of reference points (the above being one of many) because viper players are upset of the performance comparison. I'm ready to tune stuff brought with valid arguments and sources, not this. The only thing that might be concluded here is, maybe the gear drag is too high (despite it being checked like the airbrakes). And if it was decreased, you won't have anyway a big margin in the no engine landing procedure. Can we close the topic? I've got a radar to develop and it will likely be endless debated as well (remember the "ludicrous" detection range which is now acknowledged as legit ) If really the M2000-C BFM performance is a problem for you, add a tournament rule to enforce the central tank. And remember to practice your BFM. Tactics and skills are everything, endless two circle rate fight is boring. Thanks EDIT : I've tried again the no engine approach. Works perfectly with 100% fuel and gear down at 5000ft. Little margin. Thanks.

Just opened one of your tracks (full AA) and you're still starting at 10000ft

Did you disable slats?

Two wing tanks, it should start being able to dry cruise below 2T internal fuel

You need to switch off engine at 30000ft, 40NM from runway, and have slats disabled For this test. Also, it's not 10% engine required to keep hydraulics but 30%. And yes it's not yet modelled properly (big realistic elec+hyd overhaul planned) That's more than 10% drag or lift change, it's huge.

About removing some L/D ratio artificially between 5 and 12 degrees AoA, besides giving the CL and CD an unrealistic shape, this has the effect of loosing the ability to dry cruise at FL500 where some loadouts that can do it and some can't. The margin is extremely tight there and this is an important feature. Plus giving a weird effect with the chevrons that seem to "fall" when smoothly increasing the load factor during a turn, which is also not observed IRL. I can't describe the few hundredth hours spent at studying it, but we have thought all of this. Also about the Jx... I think (but it would need a confirmation) the nominal values are not an average, but a decision minimum. Actual value vary on every engine. And, we are just at this value in the current module.

It gives a very accurate value of the minimum required optimal lift/drag ratio. Then if you keep the exact same angle of attack, adjust the engine thrust carefully, and find the speed at which you can sustainably turn in these conditions, it gives a minimum point on the STR chart. We are basically at this point.

I don't know how to explain it better. There are several engine versions in the M2000, all variants of the Snecma M53. M53-5 was the original engine of the first produced airframes, then M53-P2 was developped, installed on the later airframes. In the AdA, all M53-5 were gradually replaced by M53-P2 (retrofit) and the newer engine is now the only one for the whole french M2000 fleet. There are still M53-5 engines in service in other countries. The newer engine has significantly more thrust in both MIL and AB, for instance wikipedia states +8% in AB and +18% in MIL. All this info is publicly available if you search a bit. Now the video : this is a pre-2007 video taken in Orange, France. This is likely a twin seater as B&W hudcam is typical (unless a color video was converted to B&W but unlikely). Twin seaters were still M53-5 in 2007 at Orange, so there is a significant chance this is video was recorded on an aircraft with a M53-5. This of course is, from my own source. It's not openly verifiable unless you have yours. (I'm the FM author)

To be compared with the very likely 10% engine performance with the M53-5 and M53P2

About +10% thrust with full AB

One important detail, the engine in the video is likely a M53-5 which has less thrust than the M53P2 modelled in DCS. Source : pilots, terrain (orange), aircraft (B&W -> twin seater), date (<2007), and date of M53P2 introduction on twin seaters in Orange.

Oops, yes. Fixed in next release.

It has been asked to a Mirage pilot already, no, Mirage 2000's are always filled to 100%. And confirmed with 100% confidence that this demo wasn't an exception. Also when doing a partial fill you can't know accurately how the fuel will distribute in the various tanks, so you can have imbalance, and the gauge will be wrong (since the internal level is extrapolated from the fuselage tank level gauge, wing tanks having no gauges). So it's just not possible. On the other hand partial external tank fill is in the procedures (and actually done to adjust T/O weight)

Dear Sir, You forgot air density... And guess what, if you divide your result (1.65) by 1.225 (approx air density at sea level) you find 1.34

No, lift coefficient at 28.50 AoA is 1.40 with slats fully deployed. I don't know where you get this data from. When it comes to static thrust, the acceleration (Jx coefficient in HUD) is exactly where it should be for every loadout.

He's citing Ian Black, he's not him He likely only lost the afterburner (and this may be a safety from the FADEC), not a full flameout. The backwards slide stunt has been done in airshows, and they don't flame out.

That's incorrect. You do not need to hold start in any way. And the procedure did not change for a couple of months in this regard You likely have an recent issue in your controller setup. Do you have any bind set to 'Throttle Cutoff Unlock' or 'Engines STOP' ? Also check the idle detent value in the special options.

Yes, we know this is confusing, but so far we can't avoid the sliders. There was an attempt at hiding the sliders, it worked on new missions (for which sliders are 64/234 by default) but on older missions, especially on MP servers, this resulted in people not being able to drop CMs, being limited server side by a hidden quantity value, so the change was reverted. It would have required all MP server admins to update their missions. You should always set sliders to 64/234 (this is the default on newly created missions) and ignore the number. If not this can limit the actual number of CMs that you can release. Internal will be loaded with 16/112 External is as shown on the ECLAIR slot. Actual loaded CM count is in noted your kneeboard for post-rearm check.

No, as this is unfortunately a DCS counter measure system limitation.

When he says the mirage gains speed, it seems to me it has -10° slope. As said before, a dogfight video isn't a proof, energy is not constant, and skill is involved. Another example, in the first tacview images, the F-16 is gaining altitude while turning, the Mirage is loosing altitude. The mirage has more initial energy and has an advantage. Skills skills skills.

Well yes the idea that delta wings are as aerodynamic as an ironshoe, whereas classic wings are cutting through air like a knife, are occasionally shared in sim forums, but no. The "enormous drag" is a myth. Yes, if you look at wing only models, using the same wing profile, same wing area, and compare a delta to a classical wing, there is a difference in favor of the classical design, but it's measured in percents, not "enormous drag difference", and this only at low AoAs. Now add body, pylons, cockpit, high lift devices (slats, flaps), egrets, nose, lift bodies, flat bellies, various wing profiles, different masses, engine thrust (and actual engine thrust in a turn is not the static thrust you find by simple web searches), and high AoAs, and thing get complicated. And you don't get "the group of classic wing fighters" vs "the group of delta wings fighter" with the former one well above the latter when it comes to performance. Also add to this that delta aerodynamics have been continuously improved. You cant put a Rafale delta wing on the same performance box as a F-106 delta dart.

Since you started this discussion, you could highlight it with a video proof too, this will motivate other people to do so. This being said, any BFM/dogfight video will never be a "proof" as skill is generally a greater outcome factor than anything else.