Hook47

The MiG 21s emergency procedures dictate to keep the centerline tank in the event of a main gear landing (provided it is empty!!!) so I bet a similar procedure exists

What are you talking about? All I see on the first page was guesstimation as to what the symbology meant.

Fair enough, although I think the ARMAT is in use with M2000Es but I haven't looked into it personally, but ask yourself this- How will the ARMAT being included harm (no pun intended) your experience, as a purists who never even needs or will be required to so much as strap it to the plane versus how will it impact people who may actually buy this aircraft simple because it is SEAD capable. Something to consider!

Interesting. I haven't researched it and I find it surprising no public data can be found, but I stand corrected. None the less, the RWR and other systems you mentioned are guesstimation, which is totally fine for a sim that cannot access classified data, so I for one would be perfectly satisfied with a WAGuess ARMAT! I hope the ARMAT will be something you guys eventually decide to incorporate! Thanks for the response, I love this aircraft! I am also very excited for the BLG and the BAP-100! I still see that as a double standard. If it is ok to guesstimate for a critical system like the RWR, then so much more so for a limited role weapon like the ARMAT that doesn't even have to be used. I have heard the weapon WAS fired off the aircraft, which makes it far from a fantasy weapon system. If this isn't OK for the ARMAT then we should rip the RWR and other simulated systems right out of the aircraft, and ditch the non french liveries... This is a sim, we aren't flying the real plane (sadly!) and we just can't have classified documents for systems like the RWR and apparently missiles like the ARMAT. We are still getting an experience that is mind blowingly good and would have been the subject of our wildest dreams 20 years ago.

You know, after diving into the plane and spending hours reading about it and looking at tons of pictures, I still cannot decide if it is hideous or beautiful, but I love it either way!

Pretty significant differences. I use the EAB regularly in combat. Love that the plane (MiG 21) is equipped with it. Everyone is more than aware that the M2000C and MiG 21Bis are not contemporaries. It is indeed repeated (FAR too) often on these forums. That being said, no full fidelity or even flyable F-16A is in the sim, and the MiG 29A is far less popular than the MiG 29S which in my estimation (flying both quite a bit) is superior to the M-2000C. Also the MiG 29S is not full fidelity so that gives an advantage to the plane with the easier operation. The MiG 21 and Mirage 2000 turned into unofficial rivals as they are the only two full fidelity interceptor/fighters in the sim, and probably the MiG 21 is the aircraft which the current M-2000C has the best chance fighting against. Mix that with the sim being full of seasoned MiG 21 jocks who love a challenge, and you end up with servers like the MiG 21 vs M-2000 server, and lots of comparisons stemming from that. I do not see the reason for coming into a 30 page discussion about the two aircraft, and essentially telling us to cease the discussion because the MiG 21 and M-2000C were not rivals (like it is news to us :lol:)

No bashing intended here, my feedback is given out of a sincere desire to see Aviodev succeed, but I think a respectful and honest dialogue about it is helpful and needed. Thanks for the reminder of course. I don't intend on violating the rules.

Two more pods would be great, since the rockets are tack drivers on this bird. I thought it odd it couldn't carry them on the outer pylons but maybe that is how it is. I am very curious as to what those PCA commands mean

True, and that is why I think Aviodev needs to majorly bump up the communication level. Even if nothing was done but coding, tell us about it... What was coded? You could easily make a post out of that. I can't speak for ED, but I have to say that from my perspective it would (IMO) be irresponsible to customers to allow a pre sale from Aviodev on any future product unless very substantial proof can be made to the aircraft being finished in a timely manner. It would be different if Aviodev said they were not sure if/when a EFM could be done (Before selling!) and asked a lower price, but when EFM was stated to be coming very close behind the first release it was enough for people in my postition to pull the trigger when we probably would have waited in the former case.

Gr9 seems to be, by far, the better strike aircraft so that is where my vote went!

Well I certainly hope that is not the case, maybe I give too much credit, but I guess that could be a possibility. Yea... Maybe help them Virtual Patriots/L-39 style if we don't see something soon :/

Assuming WHAT? No one but Razbam knows what source documents or SMEs they have access to, and if you do then prove it. Check this out dude and think about it carefully- saying I/we do not know what source documents Razbam has or hasn't is actually the OPPOSITE of assuming... Now I'm the one experiencing a "megalol" And like I said, I would be surprised if no one can find out how the ARMAT was fired at least on the E model. Even if know one on god's green earth can find out, it would be far from the only thing on this or other aircraft that is subject to part or total guesstimation.

A very fair valid statement, and one I think should be foreboding to Aviodev, especially if they intended on doing planes after the C101. That it why emphasize that they REALLY need to think about going the extra mile, as in way behond Razbam and other Devs who have solid communication in a attempt to manage the pretty serious PR problem that has been developing as a result of this module. I buy every module for this sim because I eat it up, and love the sim, but I have to admit that even I am very concerned I won't be buying another product from this and one other dev until they product is/ever becomes 100 percent complete. Not easy for me to say but it is where I am at sadly. If Aviodev hired me tomorrow as their PR guy (and I'm not speaking out of my depth here, I have some PR experience) the first thing I would do is launch live streams, weekly news letters with detailed development information, giveaways and community incentives, ask the dev streams or threads with highly active communication and try to repair the loss of faith in this situation by setting a very open and positive tone. What I certainly would not do is allow sparse and vague communication which often plagues a couple of the 3rd parties

Probably true, and we already know the antics of Dassault to some degree (M-2000 instead of Mirage 2000 :/) so I don't know how easy they would be to deal with.

It won't. It's already a mistake to get in a turning fight with a mirage in the Mig, so dramatic turn is definitely overstating it.

That is your opinion. My opinion is it is time well spent, and considering years of beta is the norm around here they got plenty of time You say that like its fact, but neither you or I know the extent of RAZBAMs resources or what they do or do not have access too, and I find it extremely hard to believe data on how it worked on even a 2000E at the dry least isn't available. Like said above- I sincerely doubt any purist will turn their nose up at the M2000C because it has a weapon that wasn't used on the platform. There is several things on this and other aircraft that were made with little to no data. RWR symbology is a total guess for instance. If they can find out how it worked on the E, make it work that way on the C for all I care!

Bingo. I personally know three people who all state they would buy the module simply based on inclusion of the ARMAT. I bought it either way but having a new SEAD aircraft is a big deal to some.

Mother of god, when will you learn to READ what I actually say. I said MANY, as in a large number, NOT A MAJORITY. Give me a break, dude. . . http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority Stop taking my posts out of context to start arguments. It gets old. You be serious. When I did I say it was a small if? I didn't, because neither you nor I know what type of material RAZBAM has access to, and I doubt the extent of RAZBAM's research ability is limited to Jojo's books. My logic holds, even if you do not want to admit it. Inclusion of non french liveries FROM THE DEV is NO more or less realistic than inclusion of the ARMAT. Heck, you can even call if a gift to the community. The liveries WERE NOT made by the community, therefor the request is quite valid (by your own reasoning, just in reverse) and you are guilty of the logical fallacy know as "red herring" I'm afraid. I guess RAZBAM should save the time of talented modders and include the ARMAT then? :lol: In my case, and probably the case of other, it has nothing to do with not believing you, it is more that I don't care if it was used in real life. I couldn't care less, just like I don't care that we have non-french liveries planned for a french only variant! What I care about is A. if the plane would have been capable of it, or easily modified to use it and B. if the correct documentation is available to realistically simulate it. Obviously is RAZBAM is still considering it the same logic applies to it as having non-french liveries, in that sure it isn't true to real life, but it is a worthy departure from real life to give more enjoyment out of the module. I do not see why some people dig their heels in so deep to try to prevent this from happening. A very reasonable approach, one which I agree with entirely, however it seems some parties that oppose it also oppose anyone else having it, why I do not know. :megalol:

Honestly I would love to see this, as well as 3rd party devs branch out into making new variants of released aircraft. Would add a lot to the sim.

Not having 8 minute alignment time = war thunder :megalol: I love this community

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the "majority" of the community. It is clear a large amount of people would like the ARMAT. Only a pole could tell for sure. Also saying "In 5 years when we have X" does NOT make me feel better!!! :lol: Here is the end all be all where I am concerned... If sufficient documentation can be found to implement the ARMAT onto the Mirage 2000C in a realistic manner, EVEN IF the plane never carried it, I say go for it. Having non-french liveries for the M2000C is justification enough. If it is simply not possible to realistically implement it even if it was never carried or tested because we cannot find out how the weapon worked, so be it. That being said, I think many of us would love to have this weapon if it could be done. It adds a whole new and much needed mission set to an already great aircraft. This would be really nice too, as having a variant with the RDM radar would be awesome.

Couldn't agree more. One must remember DCS is a simulation, but many concessions are made for various reasons that do not harm the experience in any way. I think the livery and cockpit argument is a very strong one considering we have a version that was not exported.

Now I do agree with that, if that cannot make the ARMAT operate realistically like the Kh 66 does (in targeting and theory of operation) then I would agree, don't do it, however if, like other things in the aircraft (RWR symbology) enough data exists to approximate, go for it!

But see there is a logical break down there, and allow me to point out my thinking behind this. . . There a liveries planned for countries besides France, correct? Yet to my knowledge the M-2000C model was only used by France. This is setting a precedent for believable departure from reality in certain cases, and I believe inclusion of the ARMAT to be one of those cases. I keep coming back to if you don't like it, don't use it, but don't pressure the devs who are considering its implementation for those of us who would use it extensively. It's clear ARMAT is no more unrealistic than a non France skin for the M-2000C

The R-73 works on the M-2000C as well! you will need to add this line under Pylons 1 and 9 in the /mods/m2000C/m2000C.lau { CLSID = "{CBC29BFE-3D24-4C64-B81D-941239D12249}", arg_value = 0.15 }, --R-73