VincentLaw

There was no confirmation on carrier ops being a DLC. It is purely speculation at this point.

There is nothing wrong with that at all. You should make purchases based on what you think is the most sensible consumer decision, and ED will set prices on what they think is the most sensible producer decision. ED isn't going to take it personally when you decide not to buy one of their modules. No harm done. ED has access to more data than we do. That is up to them to decide. If they think the new pricing system is less effective than the old one, they could go back. After all, everything is subject to change. Yes, I do, and I won't buy any module that costs that much. ED will make more money with prices that appeal to the mass market. Again, it's up to them. I don't care if they sell a module for $500. I just won't be buying it.

We are getting a Mirage 2000C S5 which comes equipped with an RDI radar. This plane can use the radar for ground range finding to make CCIP more accurate as well as terrain avoidance. That is basically all it can do. You can't detect or lock ground targets with it. Apparently the RDI was originally intended to be capable of more advanced features like terrain mapping, but the the Mirage 2000C S5 does not support that capability.

If I go by just this official post and not other things I've heard around the forums, the terms AFM and PFM refer specifically to proprietary flight model code used by ED. The product terms were not intended to be a level of certification for anyone, but more of a marketing tool for ED products. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801 When it says that the EFM uses part of the PFM, it literally means that all EFMs use the same code for collision handling as PFMs. That is still not a certification of quality because it says nothing about the quality of the 3D collision model which is up to the third party dev to create. An EFM can be as simple as an SFM, or as advanced as a PFM. If I wanted to, I could create an EFM that reads a SFM configuration file to use as the only parameters for the flight model. Similarly, I could hook my EFM up with the most advanced CFD techniques, but then I would have more than a hard time getting it to run in real-time. An EFM is a blank slate that allows the third party to do practically anything they can imagine, but it will never be a "PFM" regardless of how good it is because it does not use the propriety code that ED uses. In the end, how good it is matters more than what you call it.

Sounds like this discussion can pretty much be ended unless RAZBAM decides to do an EG variant.

There is actually an MFD upgrade for the radar screen compatible with the 2000C, but I don't have any evidence of France using it, so I doubt we will get that unless someone can prove otherwise.

By "they" you mean a single person 33 posts ago? In that case I think it is an overreaction. I still think the military version should have higher priority.

The market for a civilian version is not completely the same as the market for military versions. I have almost no interest in the military versions of the BO-105, and the only reason I am even here right now is because of discussion of a potential civilian version. If exclusively civilian aircraft can make enough sales to be profitable in other sims, then they should be able to in DCS as well. I think if we can attract more members of the civil simulation community to DCS, it will make the military component more successful as well. I think the mistake here is that civil flight simulation is not a niche inside of a DCS, but a niche outside of DCS. Working on this component will expland DCS to make it less niche (without compromising simulation fidelity), which is a good thing.

However, developers with interest in civilian models should not be turned away. The first priority of the developer should be to create a product line that sells enough copies to keep them afloat. The second priority of the developer should be to develop things that they enjoy. If the developer does not like any of their own products, then it will result in a worse experience for everyone.

I have seen plenty of fires started at airfields in DCS (especially when the Fw 190 came out). Someone should put them out! I am extra likely to buy modules that bring unique capabilities to DCS, even if it is not an aircraft I would normally be interested in. It disappoints me that the fire trucks already present in DCS have no functionality.

Je suis Paris. Please, members of the community, be considerate and do not make statements that will get this thread locked too.

Looks like hypoxia to me. You should double check your oxygen system.

Maybe we should say "Je suis Paris" now.

I think Matra FFR was referring to the rocket pods. We are getting the BAP-100 anti-runway bomb instead of the Durandal (they are similar). The BAP-100 is a rack of bombs that release in series to put big holes in the runway. The BLG-66 can also be used for anti-runway, but it doesn't damage the pavement as much. It is a multi-purpose cluster bomb that includes three bomblet types: armor piercing, shrapnel, and "area denial". I'm pretty sure the third type are mines which can hamper runway repair efforts and probably damage planes that try to take off.

Correction: P-47, not P-39.

To the contrary, a larger wing should reduce drag at subsonic speed. The increase in weight will be more than offset by the increase in lift which will allow the airplane to fly at lower angles of attack and have less drag. The extra lift is not necessary at high speed, so it will reduce the max speed as you said, but it should increase the range. The main drawback of the F-35C wing comes from its folding mechanism, which reduces the max G. The larger profile probably also makes it less stealthy.

I agree. We should evaluate the content of posts, not the person who posted them. Contributions from a user with a low post count are not any less valuable. We should strive to welcome both new and old but quiet members so that our community may grow and prosper.

I don't even have a 15 x 15 space. If I tried moving around in that I'd just end up crashing into stuff. It will most likely not be a factor for me in deciding on one of these. I will be sitting in a chair most of the time while playing games anyway.

This is the post being referred to. It is not an official announcement, but it is not misinformation either.

Those are MICA EM missiles, but that is a Mirage 2000-5, not a Mirage 2000C. The planes look very similar from the outside, but the systems are very different. The Mirage 2000C cannot fire MICA missiles.

It would be reasonable to make a hybrid sight with a historical snake and a predictive pipper. The movement of the target matters because if, for example, the target is accelerating or moving faster than you, but you ignore that, then the target will be in front of the expected point of impact when the bullets get there. The system actually already makes some assumptions about the velocity of the enemy, assuming that you have maneuvered behind it and matched velocity with it, so a pipper that does not correct for actual target motion would be completely in the wrong spot for frontal aspect shots. The Mirage 2000C has a couple of wingspan bars on the snake that you can use to imagine your own funnel if you wish. Additionally, if you have the target on radar, the Mirage 2000C does put a pipper on the snake where you want to shoot. Four. The Mirage 2000C can carry two IR missiles and two SARH missiles.

Yes, that's what I was getting at, but from the other limitations I've heard about, and the low time resolution of the snake, I doubt the 2000C has the computational power to do that, or it might come at the expense of some other capability.

I don't know to what extent planes do that, but it doesn't need to draw a vector on the target. Just move the pipper based on target maneuvering. In any case, the 2000C uses a historic impact point instead of a predicted impact point. A predicted impact point for the pipper would allow the pilot to fire more easily since the information is not delayed. I actually do like the snake. The snake looks much less cluttered than the funnel, and you are right, the gun cross is there if the pilot needs to use it. I always use the fixed AND gyro mode in the P-51, which allows me to imagine my own snake in my head.

I agree with this. With modern signals processing a predictive sight should accurate, but it seems like the Mirage 2000C has limited computational power so it may not have been a matter of preference. It is less difficult from the computational standpoint to place the pipper on the snake, since the snake is already calculated it becomes a 2 dimensional interpolation problem, so it makes sense for the 2000C.

I think his point is that we should not expect a flyable 2000-5 any time soon. In any case, there is not that much work to do for avionics on an AI plane, which is the purpose of this thread.