bkthunder

+1

Hi, I have exactly the same issue, but even with 2x MSAA or even 4x MSAA, the jaggies are still much more noticeable than in non-MT with MSAA off and only SSAA 1.5x. Another point to note is that if I use re-shade, the MXAO (ambient occlusion filter) doesn't work in MT, while it works in non-MT. I have a GTX1080 and Intel

Myabe I'm crazy but I remember the Mig-29 to have overwign vapor effects..

It is not a matter of comparing with other aircraft per se. The point here is that, lacking hard information, we try to understand the accuracy of the Mirage FM based on the comparison with a "known quantity" which is the F-16. The F-16 block 50 is widely documented and we have exact charts showing how it performs IRL. These are compared with the DCS F-16, and we see that it closely matches RL numbers for ITR and STR. We don't know how the Mirage should perform due to lack of public documents, however we have plenty of literature, intrviews, heresay that the Mirage 2000 has a phenomenal ITR and a relatively poor STR. Fact is: The DCS Mirage 2000 performs better than the DCS F-16. The conclusions can be two: 1. This is not correct because it's contrary to common knowledge and heresay about how the M2000 should perform. 2. This is correct and realisitc, and all that has been written and said so far about the Mirage is bulls**t. I'm not the one to say which is correct, but I think it is only fair that people might question this and that you - Razbam - should be able to answer in a convincign way.

It's not about Northrop, I want to compare it with the F-16 where all charts are at much lower fuel weights (actually less than 50%)

Do you have this for 50% fuel?

Thanks, this gives some idea of what you used. Would love to see that engine research paper and the break and dead engine procedures. By the way that other F-16 sim that can't be named, comes with a set of Mirage 2k FM documentation that is said to be well researched. The STR and performance in general is **very** different than what we have now in DCS and much more similar to the older flight model of your M2k. Was that based on wrong/outdated info and how did you rule out SME bias?

Test data is posted in the link in OP. Other data (in game) I quoted is from "Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS" attached (very interesting document btw!). Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS.pdf

As per the title. This seems to be the only piece of info widely available, which seems to be completely wrong according to your reworking of the FM. As of today, the M2000 in game has - the best sustained turn rate - the best instanatenous turn rate - the smallest sustained turn radius In other words, it is simply the highest-perofming aircraft in the sim right now. If you are going to release a FM that goes against all "popular belief" and available literature, can you please take care to document your findings and why it performs so differently? This is a study sim, I at least am eager to learn and re-learn what I (think I) know, as long as it's not just a "because I say so" situation. P.S. this has nothing to do with balancing, I am fully against it and if the M2000 is indeed the best 4th gen fighter in the world, then I'm happy it is represented properly.

just my 2 cents, but I flew the M2000 for a while and it's a UFO. Did a lot of MP dogfights both with and against the Mirage, and it out-rates, outclimbs and out-maneuvers anything in game, including the F-18 which is already performing questionably too well. This just goes against all popular belief/knowledge about the mirage and delta wings in general. If this is truly realistic, chapeau to Dassault for making the best aircraft in the world. I hope your SME is not like that french pilot that, when inteviewed, declared that fighting an EF-2000 was like shooting fish in a barrel...

Bump, any aknowledgment of this bug?

Yep, I have seen those videos yesterday as well and PMd to Bignewy. However I also found a video where they clearly don't go up... I think it boils down to the pilot rarely waiting for the full deflection to be achieved, hence why it's hard to notice

I believe I stated the exact document and page number in my post but I think you edited it. In that case no, I don't have another source other than all the videos you can find online and observe for yourself. I am also not coinvinced by the current DCS implementation, and haven't seen any public data that says the ailerons deflect full up on the ground, so if you guys can share anything in that regard it would be great!

"The flaperons are located on the wing trailing edge and function as ailerons and TEF's. The flaperons have a maximum command deflection of 20 degrees down and 23 degrees up. When acting as flaps, the deflection is downward; when acting as ailerons, the deflection is up or down, as commanded. Both functions are operable whenever the FLCS is powered. The TEF's are controlled as a function of the LG handle position, the ALT FLAPS switch, airspeed, and mach number." As of today in DCS, with LG down and on the ground, full later stick deflection commands the aileron to the full up position, while it should at max go to neutral (one flaperon full down, the other at neutral position).

Hi all and happy new year! Reading through the F-14B natops I came across the decsription of nozzle operation, and verified the in-game model differs from reality (or at least what's described in the NATOPS) when on the ground with weight on wheels: From page 2-18: "On deck in PRI mode with throttle above IDLE detent, nozzle position varies linearly with throttle position." In DCS, the nozzle closes completely (and not linearly) as soon as the throttle is cracked forward, as can be seen in the screenshot null EDIT: one more thing, the noz pos gauges seem to be wrongly labeled 0-5 insted of 0-10, according to the (very low res) depitction on the NATOPS, see attached image

"cannot reproduce" and "pm evidence"... means you think it's all good. Good luck. I'm off to that other sim for another while.

The parameters and behavior of the engine are off. RPM values at MIL and A/B are not realistic, the engine goes to Idle at high alt/speed whiel it's supposed to be limited to higher RPM to prevent issues, SEC mode is not workign properly with throttle response beign way too slow etc. Are you, ED, aware of these issues?

I think the point is that yes, the Ka-50 had/has the Missile Warning System, but if so why doesn't ED model the dispaly in the cockpit in a realsitic way as it is on such MWS-equipped Ka-50s? Second point is: if ED took educated guessing in lack of more info and details, why are they so stubborn on not fixing/changing items in other modules when there is ample docmentation provided by the community that would allow very educted guessing? It's this dicotomy that throws me a little off.

So the BS3 we have in DCS is purely fictional? Wasn't DCS supposed to be a sim and ED extremely precise about the specific day/month/year and minute of what is being modeled (e.g. the F-16?)

Nice!!

To be honest I was expecting to (finally..) see an animated engine nozzle and those sliding doors that close the bypass at high speed. The rest looks great, but the above is sticking out at this point in a modern 3d model.

This is annoying as hell!

Hi, the F2 view doesn't allow to get closer to the carrier enough to see the details of objects on the deck, or to place the camera in a way that gives a good view of an approaching harrier. There is also no F9 "LSO" view. This makes it impossible to watch your own landings with any semblance of a realistic POV.

Just noticed the same. All statics were there before and caused no isssue whatsoever, so I don't see why it has to be an issue now. The SC is barebones as it is, the onyl way to add a bit of immerison is to add some static crew and objects, can't we even do that now???

Thanks for clarifying, and looking fwd to the full implementation! It's shaping up nicely so far