Brisse

I made a bug report in the 1.5 open beta section yesterday on the same topic, including the chart I made. Sorry, it's a little bit too time consuming. I don't have Tacview professional so I had to enter all the data manually in a spread sheet. Someone with Tacview professional would be able to make the same thing much easier, since it has some chart and export functions that I don't have access too.

I hate seeing every symbol stacked on each other in the middle of the screen. You can't really distinguish the bearing to the emitter when it's like that, and it looks really cluttered. How about programming it so that the max signal strength isn't in the center of the screen, but slightly outside the center, perhaps closer to the circle?

IIRC, slats are automatically disabled when gear down, so it's possible you tested with slats disabled all the time, unless you manually deployed them.

CptSmiley just made a post of things they are working on or have already fixed. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156925 Some of those things I think might affect the sustained turn rate, so further testing on the current public version would be redundant. We won't be able to provide valuable feedback on this until we get our own hands on those updates.

Well there you go. That's what I call excellent results PitbullVicious :)

Seems reasonable to me. Remember, the target was flying away from him. If it was head on he would have been able to engage at almost twice that distance.

Apples and oranges. High and low altitude. Hot or cold aspect. Etc...

Look at the bright side. It may be more polished when you finally get your hands on it.

5000m ASL or 16 400ft ASL

No, launch speed was the same. It just accelerated faster. The zero-mark is actually a point in time just after the launch. TacView would not give me a speed reading of the missile at the exact moment it spawned.

Look at the total weight and diameter and you can easily come to the conclusion that it's probably draggier but has more thrust. That could lead to higher top speed, but speed will drop faster after the burn is complete, which could actually hurt the long range performance.

Usually the 9g fighters will be limited to 8,5g +-0,5g so a possible maximum of 9g, but not necessarily exactly 9g.

Possible bug R.550 Magic 2 DCS 1.5.2.48162.126 R.550 Magic 2 performance looks strange. Launch parameters: 5000m ASL, 760km/h TAS

I'm no expert, but I think there is reason to doubt that the current R.550 Magic 2 is simulated properly.

I decided to test this and it seems you are right. I am gathering some data which I will share as soon as I'm done. What I can say in the meantime is that the R.550 Magic 2 seems to be hitting a wall and decelerates much quicker than an AIM-9M.

That's awesome CptSmiley. :)

DCS_Updater already uses torrent method and if you abort it and then start it again, it will pick up where it left.

Exactly. There's also the fact that the atmosphere changes as you fall so the terminal velocity decreases during the fall. It's never constant, unless you are in a vacuum, in which case it's approaching infinity, because there's no resistance.

Well, that depends on what the speed was. Every object in free fall in the atmosphere has something called "terminal velocity". The object will accelerate to it's terminal velocity, then the air resistance will be equal to the gravitational pull and the object will stop accelerating. If you are decelerating, then you started out at a speed above your terminal velocity. Of course, the terminal velocity changes if you deploy your airbrake, or do anything to alter the shape (and thus it's drag) of the object.

+1 I would like to use the microstick on my HOTAS Cougar throttle, which would control the TDC in an F-16. I know it's not 100% realistic for the M2000 but I like to map my controls so that they are similar for most aircraft. Easier to remember all the controls that way.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

They were honest about the state of the module at open "beta" release. We that are regulars on the forums knew what we were getting. But on the other hand, think about all the people that aren't forum regulars. How would they know what to expect? I can sympathize a little bit with them, but I don't like seeing the rude posts on the forum created by some of them. I think it's a communication problem. Sure, the forum regulars such as ourselves have been able to communicate with the devs, but not much was done outside of that. What about putting more information about it's state in the newsletter and module store page? There was nothing there except a "beta" tag, which wasn't enough in my opinion. A few words about what systems would work and what the future plans were would have been a nice gesture.

I wouldn't say the cockpit graphics are weak. It's a bit dark though. Not sure if it's supposed to be like that or not.

IIRC, the M2000 FBW is AoA command system at low speed and G command system at higher speeds.

In DCS there are many aircraft, and trying to map through HOTAS software for several aircraft is a nightmare. It's mostly good for older sims where you have only one aircraft and the sim doesn't support as many DX buttons and axes that your HOTAS has. DCS has a decent system for mapping every button and axis the way you want it, individually for every aircraft, so in DCS I prefer to run the HOTAS in directx mode and map everything in DCS.