Azrayen

I guess so. You shouldn't exceed M2.2 or ~750-800kt (depending on temperature) (whichever lower) If you do, you'r out of the accepted (tested & validated) flight enveloppe. At your own risk! Problems to be expected. Pilots IRL won't do that (except by accident).

And again a new topic... How much is it now? 10? 15?:D

No idea "out of the blue". 1st thing to do is try to reproduce the issue: - use same mission as last time - see if bug appears again - if yes, save track and post it here (with comments as to when/what to look) Thanks :)

Just made a quick flight in 2.0.3 (today's update applied). Didn't see much wrong.

Not a great idea. It will work, sure, but it's not "the" solution. M2000 doesn't use drag chute unless being in an abnormal situation (failure, overweight...) It's an emergency device on this aircraft. Besides, it's not always available : if you carry Éclair pod for example.

Excellent!! :D DRM controls the decoy system as a whole (just like nearby switches BR, DA...), so A = powered Off. DRP controls programs. If not program (A), no launch, except for PANIC that is program-independent by nature. Thanks a lot, Zeus.:) That one makes perfect sense. :thumbup:

Tharos, I never said 930kCAS at SL (or any level for that matter) is OK. :D Particularly with ~standard conditions described since (air at 20°C). I just pointed that the FM is still WIP for some part. And that's obviously one of them. ;) Yes this is logical. No the 2K has no fixed Vne (sorry). The limit is an impact T° (which will translate to a CAS, but will depend on the current conditions). Just like Concorde, BTW. Now, that would be a link to share :) ++ Az'

OK, let's answer in 2 parts: Logical expectation. For this, please wait until the module is out of beta. During beta stage, lots of things, including FM, are tuned, sometimes using a trial-and-error process. Logical expectation. But what are the real life specs? There is an interesting question. :) And not an easy one to answer (unless you aren't allowed to talk much about it).

Hi Wow, so many inputs... :) Let's try to shed some light: 1/ AFAIK there is no "C" or "F" on the RWR display IRL 2a/ The status of the Chaff and Flares (remaining qty...) is shown by a panel that is not modeled by Razbam (= non existent in DCS) 2b/ OTOH, we have the Éclair control box in DCS (which IRL is seldom used); I support Razbam's decision to use it all the time, the counters it display are most practical. 3/ There is no voice announciator on the M2000. That's one of its beloved characteristics, and noticeable difference vs US (Betty) and RU (Nadia) aircraft. Voice announciator was introduced on the Rafale. I'll come back later on the topic of the decoys management, programs and so on. About consistency: I agree with microvax and zerO_crash, we need this. So regarding the status lights (below the RWR display): - Light Off = system is Off / not powered - Light On = system is On - Light Blinking = system is in BIT test, or damaged = powered but not able to work V light (short for Veille=StdBy) is about the "listening" part of the jammer; as soon as the jammer system is powered (even if not emitting), V light is On. BR light (short for Brouillage=Jamming) is about the "emitting" part of the jammer; as soon as the jammer system is actively emitting (=jamming), BR light is On. DA light is about the RWR, as soon as the system is available, DA light is On. D2M light is about the MAWS, this system is not available at the moment, but when it will be, I expect the same principle as DA light. LL light (short for Lance-Leurres=Decoy dispensers) is about the decoy system. As soon as the system is ready to release decoys, the LL light is On. Indicating the remaining number of available decoys should be done through the Éclair control box (and only there, no need for 2 times the same information in the cockpit + it's ~realistic with the caveat of the panel modeled in DCS). About the Jammer: Zeus, I propose the following table (based on your model): Choice made #1: as PCM mode is not simulated (I support this decision, it would have little to no sense in DCS current environnment), I made the [] and PCM positions of the selector strictly identical, hence the "[] or PCM" line. Choice made #2: the pilot can look at his PCCM panel to know how he set the jammer switches (BR switch + VEI/[]/PCM selector). But he cannot look around in the cockpit to know the position of his HOTAS jammer pushbutton. So the BR light is most useful (and consistent with adjacent lights!) if it only lights when the jammer is actually emitting. ++ Az'

Not on the M2000. Consider low number of available flares.

I understand your issue. I'm sorry I'm not able to provide an explanation (again, not an aerodynamician); I can just tell you that what you think doesn't match with what I read/was being told... etc. from good RL sources, writing/talking about this aircraft and not in general :)

Looks like UTM... dig this way :) As to the "how": you'll have to translate UTM into LATLONG to feed them in the M-2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_coordinate_system

Sorry, best I can do here is quoting the following, from the § about Becs (slats) an old RL manual: I hope your read French; for those who don't, the NB at the end explain what I wrote earlier i.e. the slats can be manually extended with L/G down, in case of engine loss of thrust in approach. = = = = = = I'm not an aerodynamician, but I don't think slats do that. They are not flaps. = = = = = = [edit] Well, there is also the Rafale and Typhoon. Granted they're not pure deltas, but delta-canards.

Thanks :) Indeed "slat" is used in RL documentation/cockpits of "english" M2000s. Uh? Not sure to follow you here. "if AoA remains the same" + "reduce the required AoA" in the same sentence => sounds illogical to me? My understanding is that at "high" (approach/14°) AoA, Cx will be lower if slats are extended. So, with slats retracted (= auto mode when L/G down), Cx will be higher, needed thrust (to maintain AoA & flighpath) will be higher. I you have low thrust issues (engine problems) the last thing you want is a higher Cx. In this case, you'll switch the slats to "extended" manually. Of course it's not the only way. Wrote that because you told about your experience ;) It can't? Damn. Why did I read the contrary on a RL documentation related to this specific aircraft? (I'm not an aerodynamician, nor a mathematician)

Sounds logical indeed :) But the extended item may also change the aerodynamics of the entire wing in such a way that the induced drag reduction is more important than the drag added by the item itself. That's what happens in the case we're discussing.

Télémétrie Air Sol Radio Sonde

I don't think it was a general statement. OTOH, it's a statement that fits the M2000. Did you fly a lot of delta-winged high performance aircraft? How do you define (how much is) "near" critical flight regime? Oh my god. :doh: You're totally right, brainfart on my account. I should have written "your drag is higher". Very sorry about the induced confusion. I will edit my post right away.:blush: It's a good thing to ask those questions. :) AoA FBW limit (A/A mode): 29° (27° under 100kt) AoA pilot limit (CHARGES mode): 20° Approach AoA: 14°

Just did that: "Slats (as in the M2000c) are designed to separate from the wing leading edge" Errr... no. No slot between the slats and the wing on the M2000. Perhaps "slats" is not the right word in English (in your opinion at least) and LEF would better correspond. But they're not "hinged" per se on the M2000 either. Indeed slats do not increase lift at identical AoA (or not enough to be noteworthy) (and that's why I didn't talk about lift earlier). Slats extend the range of available AoA (with slats: critical AoA = higher value). But you're wrong on your second sentence: at high AoA (such as approach AoA ~14°), extended slats lower induced drag. [edit] and I corrected an error on my part; perhaps it's more "convincing" now? Agreed. The M53 is not so bad in that aspect, but still as all jets it needs time to accelerate. So yes, that's the reason. No slats = more Cx (more drag) = more thrust needed = higher RPM = better engine response time. Of course as jojo said, if you have thrust (engine) problems, the rule changes.

As jojo said, without slats your [edit] DRAG is higher. Hence your engine runs higher. Hence it's quicker to accelerate to MIL/Full AB if you need to go around. (originally I wrote AoA instead of drag; thanks to vparez to point this error to me)

Roll "auto trim" is kinda provided by AP basic mode. And M-2000 is made to be flown with this AP basic mode engaged most of the time.

Not if you want to simulate RWRs with different capabilities? = = = = = I agree with fixen and await gladly for the result of his inquiry :)

Mhmm nice idea. I would need to use a distinct PTT for each radio for that to work, but that's how it works in RL aircraft so why not :)

Wait for next update. PI and OBL issue fixed in dev.

We understood your opinion, we just don't share it. I agree it may (note: not "will") be easier and/or quicker, BUT it would also leave a "workaround" in the code, so: 1/ next module/aircraft having the same need will require the same workaround to be coded for it, and it only 2/ when ED changes its code, each and every previously coded workarounds will need to be de-coded In the broad term, the solution you advocate for equals 3x (at least) the workload for the solution I favored (and that's also why I disagree with you). ++ Az'

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2911082#post2911082 ;)