Brisse

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.

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

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.

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.

I'm probably fine with both options, but leaning slightly toward full realism instead of game balance. The aircraft you are trying to use as balance arguments are not full fidelity modules, so it's understandable that it's missing there.

I think I read somewhere on the forums that M-2000C is missing from the core DCS:W which is a problem, but as soon as that is fixed, it should come up in the mission editor looking like an AI aircraft. Just select it, then go to the skill setting and choose "client".

Haha, funny :) A lot of people are hurt because they came in with the wrong expectations. I think those of us who followed the developers posts on the forums knew what we were getting. They have been honest about the state of the module. Sadly, I think they could have handled the release better from a marketing standpoint. What about all of those that didn't read the forums? What expectations did they have when paying up to 60$ for this module? Sure, the front page says "open beta", but I don't think that is quite enough information to be honest. Either they should have been more transparent about the state of the module to everyone (not just us who frequently visit forum), or they should have fleshed out the module more before letting it out in the open. I think Razbam will be taking this as a learning experience, in a similar fashion to what other third parties had to do after their first releases.

I have a few hours in the M-2000C since yesterday. I have been reading what the devs have been writing on the forums for months and they have been very honest about the state of the open beta release so I came in knowing what it was. With that said, a lot of other people have been really annoyed with the state of the module, most likely because they had the wrong expectations, thinking it was going to be as fleshed out as something like the MiG-21bis. It's really not. It's probably the least fleshed out module in DCS so far, but it's not that buggy. It's just incomplete. If you don't want to be part of the testing phase then I suggest you don't buy it yet. If you are prepared to support the developer and provide constructive feedback, while seeing the module take shape over the next few months, possibly many months, then go right ahead and buy it now. Flight model: It's using a EFM and it's a unique experience in DCS because of the unstable nature of the aircraft and fly-by-wire. If you have been flying Falcon BMS it will be very familiar to you. The flight model is promising and enjoyable in it's current state, but not finished. It shouldn't take that much tweaking until it is spot on though. Systems: This is where there is a lot of incomplete stuff. Many systems are not yet implemented such as INS navigation. Missions: There are several quick action type missions available both on Caucasus and Nevada map. Should keep you entertained for a few hours while learning the aircraft. No training missions yet, but I found that the aircraft is really easy to figure out on your own. I barely even needed the manual, but there is a manual available if you want to get into the details.

The 2.0 currently available is an early test version. All aircraft are working but there might be issues with some that you don't have on 1.5.2. As of yet, Nevada is the only map that works with 2.0, and Nevada is payware. They will update the Caucasus map to work in 2.0 before it's final release and that will still be free just like in older versions. If you don't want Nevada, you will just have to wait. The only reason to buy Nevada right now is if you want to participate in the development by testing and providing feedback to the developers. Otherwise, it's better to just wait.

Wow. The confusion is real. Just save yourself some headaches and wait for the final release of 2.0. Your install will automatically update to 2.0 when it's ready and everything you already own will work in 2.0.

No, it's not a problem. PayPal automatically exchanges the money during payment.

It's in the manual. Chapter 13: Aircraft Procedures

Oh? It seems they got the 2.0 version out just now. :)

Uh? That's not true at all.