mattebubben

Yea the Mirage 2000 should not be simplified just for balance. Especially since more and more fully modeled aircraft are starting to enter service now. If anything the FC-3 fighters should be updated to make things like Radar and RWR more realistic + more fully modeled (and not as simplified as they are today)

Its extremely easy to tell the fake targets from the real once. Below the target indicator (the Chevron) You have the Merge Velocity in Mach numbers. But you only get the Velocity indication below real targets. So numbers below the Chevron = real target and no numbers = fake target. And alot of the Advantages the F-15 and the other FC-3 fighters have over the Mirage 2000 are because they alot more simplified in their modeling. The Fake Targets are one example of that (IRL all the FC-3 fighters will show fake targets depending on the jammer type but they have chosen not to impliment the fake targets for the FC-3 fighters) The Mirage 2000 is a great fighter and you can do very well in it. All you have to do is adapt your flying to the Mirage. You cant fly the Mirage like you would a F-15 or a Su-27 because they are very different fighters. If you fly the Mirage correctly you can tangle with any fighter in this game and be confident of victory.

Well it also has Aim-7s. And using Aim-54s togethers with Aim-7s might be a solid tactic even if the Aim-54s are not super effective. Since throwing a Aim-54 at a fight will force him to either to evasive or eat a very large missile. And if he goes defensive that gives the F-14 the chance to keep pressing into Aim-7 or Aim-9 range while the enemy is defensive. This aught to be especially effective against Non Aim-120 equipped fighters. I dont think the F-14 will be able to or should rely on the Aim-54 completely against fighters. carry a mixed loadout and use all the weapons together to get the enemy off balance letting you secure the kill.

The question is not if it can kill fighters but if it can kill fighters trying to evade. Of the the Iranian kills (if not all) were against targets flying straight and level either not knowing the missile was coming or thinking they were safe from it. So a fighter doing its best to evade might be a different matter. And while yes its a fast missile with a lot of thrust over a long duration it is a very heavy missile. So it will most likely not be super maneuverable (atleast not at medium/long ranges) and it aught to burn its speed very fast once the rocket goes cold.

Well =P. They are not. Atleast if you are talking about the ones who start with Matra. The Magic does not really have any significant problems. If you get a solid lock and fire within the launch perameters you have a very good chance of the missile hitting. And for the Super 530 the only real problems it has had are radar related and not really missile related. (as if missiles miss when you loose radar lock you cant really blame the missile). I only really play MP and id say my hit percentages for the missiles are very good. About 65-70% for the magic IIs and 40-45% for the Super 530 (which is not that bad for a BVR SARH missile. (and some of my misses are radar related so when the radar is perfected the 530 aught to be pretty good for a SARH missile). Any missile will miss if launched outside parameters or in the wrong situation. So those misses cant really be blamed on the missile.

The Visual model is that of the P3 but dont know if the performance etc is mirrored to that or not. And also none of that generations Aim-9 rocket engines are truly smokeless. Reduced smoke yes but dont know if any can be said to be have been truly smokeless.

The Flare avoidance Depends on the All aspect variant. The Aim-9P4 had a seeker that was based on the Aim-9L (slightly less advanced in order to be cheaper to produce require less maintenance and a longer shelf life but with pretty comparable performance) with the Aim-9P5 seeker being an improved variant with similar IRCM resistance as the Aim-9M. the P4 and P5 (and the rear aspect P3) where all made at the same time and it was simply up to the user what capabilities they wanted and how much they were ready to pay as the prices varied significantly. (The US also decided in the end what variants a nation were allowed to buy so a trusted nation like South Korea or Switzerland could pick any of the variants while a less trusted nation like a small state in Africa etc were often limited in what variant they were allowed to buy). The range estimates ive seen for the Aim-9P range between 10-18km (and thats a pretty significant gap =P ) but i have no idea how correct those are. But sadly they have not yet promised or stated there will be a All aspect Aim-9P as well as the standard Rear Aspect one. But i will be very annoyed if They dont give it the All aspect one as well as its so common on F-5Es. And especially since all other Fighters you will be facing have later weaponry (even the Mig-21 has a 1980s missile in the form of the R-60M and it can carry 6 missiles instead of the 2 of the F-5E) So dont really see them having and excuse not to add it (since mission makers will always have the option to just use the older variants if they dont want the all aspect Aim-9 for a 1970s scenario)

Not sure hard to find any good sources for range. And do you mean Aim-9P in general or Aim-9P3 (Most likely the Aim-9P we have modeled ingame at least visually) or do you mean one of the all aspect variants?. But in either case ive not been able to find any definate sources and those ive been able to find have stated different ranges. Some gives it the same range as the Aim-9L/M and some gives the Aim-9P slightly shorter range. And its also slightly less manuverable but all in all the all aspect variants should be pretty decent. And they cant be all that bad seeing as they were even used by the USAF for many years in decent numbers. (to complement the Aim-9L/M series and to be used when they did not need to carry the more expensive Aim-9L/Ms)

Well The All aspect Aim-9Ps are actually quite capable. (Aim-9P4 and Aim-9P5) And that has been the standard missiles amongst many of the major users of the F-5E for over 30 years. And i REALLY hope they will add either of those... As it would really make no sense not to add them. Since they are compatible they are very common for the F-5E across the world and it would in no way make the F-5E unbalanced etc...

Yes. Only the wingtip launchers can carry Aim-9s.

For me i only had this problem with Rudder Pedals. Ive had the Mirage 2000 since the Dec 25 Release. And ive never had this problem except for when i plugged it to the Rudder pedals i bought (CH Pedals that i returned later as they were to narrow for me) With Those rudder Pedals i had the same problem as you guys seem to Experience (As soon as you start gathering speed the aircraft Pulls hard to the side Left in my case and is pretty much impossible to stop the turn) and i only had that problem with the rudders for the mirage all other aircraft worked fine. But as soon as i went back to the Joystick Twist rudder the problem vanished.

well actually no =P. In British English its ELK and the only reason the name in American english changed is due to a mistake/cofusion. When the first colonists from England got to North America the Elk (or Moose) they knew kinda what a Elk (moose) was as it existed in the european mainland but since it has been Extinct in Britain for a long time already none of them had ever seen one. So when the Saw a large 4 legged animal with Antlers (Wapiti) they called it an Elk. So when they found a real elk (moose) the name was already taken xD. But Internationally Elk is name for moose and most European languages have names very close to Elk in their own languages (as they are all related) (Alces Alces in Latin, Elk in English,Elch in German,Elg in Danish / Norweigan,Älg in Swedish,Alce in spanish and so on) Sorry for the Language Lecture ^^.

Either way the Mirage Line is starting to be pretty filled out. With the Mirage 2000 and now the Mirage III as well as the Mirage F1 from Aviodev. The line is getting pretty completed. Only Mirages missing after that would be the Mirage V based of the Mirage III and the Mirage IV Strategic Bomber.

Yea an announcement on the 6th with a release after the 21st would make sense. the 21st is a Teusday so maby Pre orders on 21st and the Launch on the friday? (24th) Unless they can talk ED into doing a Update on Teusday =P. One can always dream =>.

Seems like its almost time for this to come into effect =).

Yes but is there any idea / Plans in roughly what order they will be released in after we have the AG radar Support. Will they all be worked on side by side or will some be a bit more focused (or are already further along) It just feels a bit strange if the A-6 and AV-8B+ would come before the A-7 as we have heard about it for so long while the A-6 and the AV-8B+ were announced pretty recently. And for me the A-7 is the aircraft i look the most forward to of all the DCS aircraft in development (Not just from Razbam but over all). But i trust you guys so if you guys are saying it will be made sooner or later i will trust you guys. Though i would lie if i said i would not prefer it to come out sooner ^^.

They already stated they might turn it into a E but that it remains to be seen.

How are they close to eachother?... They might look similar (as in they are both French Deltas) But other then that they are completely different. one Is a modern 1980s FBW fighter and the Other is a early 1960s Barebones Fighter. They will play out and preform VERY differently and will be very different to fly.

As already stated work on other Modules dont impact the Progress of the Mirage 2000. A dev Team is large and the members are specialised at different areas. So when they are at a part with the module that the module is finished in many of those areas so a number of Dev members can no longer contribute as their areas of expertise has been finished it only makes sense that those members move on to lay down the basics on other modules. Instead of them just doing nothing while other team members finish up the Mirage 2000.

Thats Because it is the Mirage III =P As They stated a few times in the Thread Already. A Mirage IIICJ Shahak was the Israeli nickname for their Mirage IIIs.

Sure but In a Dev team most of the Devs have different Work Areas. So when some Devs are done with they work on a module and cant really help with polishing / bug fixing it only makes sense that they might move on to start working on a different module. They way when the all the work is done on the module you already have some of the basics for the next module. Instead of Team Members just sitting there Fiddling their thumbs when are done with the areas where they have expertise. So work on other Modules does not take away from the work on the Mirage 2000.

A Mirage III would be amazing no matter the Variant. As would a Mirage V.

The Cessna was Likely a FAC aircraft. But yea Using Carriers for Aircraft Delivery was not that uncommon. (for aircraft that were not able to just fly to the destination)

While the F-5B is kinda similar to the T-38 (has a similar nose etc and has no onboard cannon) the F-5E still retains all the capabilities of the Single Seat F-5E (it looses 1 cannon some internal fuel and is a bit heavier but otherwise its as capable) It has a radar 1 cannon and can carry all ordnance the Single Seat can. And it also twin Radar Screens so it could be a fun two seat aircraft especially if they gave it AGM-65 capability (if they found enough info for it) AMG-65 Capability was actually more common for the Two seaters then for the Single seaters. As the Two seater gave the benefit of having a WSO (back seater) to handle the Maverick and its display while the pilot could fly the aircraft. So some users would get the maverick displays for their two seaters and have it do more of a strike role and leave the air-air to the single seaters (as they had slightly better flight performance etc). But even if i would love to see a F-5F i dont think its to likely sadly as it would take some major work. It would need a modified Flight model and some structural changes (more then just adding a second cockpit as its nose it stretched and some other changes) and also they would have to work on the Two seat capability (so they would have to make two cockpits even if the front one should be pretty identical to the F-5E) If they make it i will probably buy it but i would not count on it. But id much rather have a Two seat variant of a fighter then someone making another Trainer =P.

A F-5F would be nice as you could still fly it alone and operate it pretty much fully. Especially if they gave it AGM-65 Support =) (with the Backseater being able to focus on using the Maverick with the Pilot focusing on pilot stuff)