red_coreSix

The F-15 has no FBW at all. It has a mechanical auto-trimmer that tries to keep the plane trimmed to 1G (pitch only). The Su-27 has a fly-by-wire with artificially added nose-up/down movements when speeds changes. Sukhoi did this after pilots complained that they need to have a feel for speed.

That is a problem with all missiles not just the mirages. You'll find it only occurring when the helicopter is slow because the missiles have problems tracking at slow speeds. It is supposed to be this way I think.

Are you at low altitude and same speed as the targets you're following? If so then this is a somewhat accurate representation of side-lobe clutter that can appear in this situation. Somewhat because I don't know how the RDI filters side-lobe clutter, but it is a problem in the N019/N001.

A delta wing should bleed a lot of speed in turns, the changes made are a step in the right direction. The engine power seems alright, the F-15 has a pretty high idle thrust too.

The D2M should be pretty accurate for angle tracking as are all modern IR sensors. It's much more likely that the RWRs we have in DCS are way too accurate. IR is bad for ranging and radar bad for angle tracking (comparatively obviously).

The SPO-15 is a hybrid digital/analog system and can process a huge amount of targets but will eventually run out of lights to display them. In this case the maximum number of secondary targets displayed would correspond to the maximum number of lights available.

LOL, I can be happy if my ED AIM-120 hits a target at 7NM and that is frontal aspect. But I agree that the 530s were way under powered but now they're in a way over powered in comparison to what ED is simulating in their missiles. They have a different drag modelling and thus different performance. That won't work in long term if every 3rd party developer can make their own versions of weapons , this is something that ED needs to provide in a somewhat realistic matter. Otherwise we'll end up with a DCS that is split by different devs following different interpretations of different sources. As far as the D2M goes, having it depend on loadout restriction would be a bad choice as it's very tiring to change all missions to have that restriction. A simple option like the "INS always aligned" option would be better.

Why would you promise it in the first place if you know that it is unrealistic? Not trying to sound smart but I don't get it. I don't want a mixture of the M-2000C/D which never existed. I want the M-2000C with all it flaws and features :)

Zeus, I love the work you're putting into this but why are you adding things that the real M-2000C never had. Isn't the module supposed to simulate the C not the D model? I can't wrap my head around it...

No, that question was discussed a couple of pages of ago already. The 9.12 could carry long and short-burn R-27s.

Do we know they are working on it? No Have they said a word about it in the last months? No My problem is that RAZBAM seems to be completely ignoring this issue, again, multiple threads have been made almost a year back now and they received little to no attention whatsoever. Just like this one after, like you said, nine pages. I just want an official statement that this is acknowledged and being worked on...

The lack of understanding is because the mirage, with its broken damage model, is released into the normal stable DCS. If they want to go the route of "we have higher priorities than the damage model" than don't put it into a stable release where people can exploit this and make the mirage something it isn't... And the point about FC3 planes being to fragile is utterly ridiculous, I've certainly landed with one wing in the F-15 and Su-27 but if you tell me that a MRM will not destroy a Mirage/F-15/Su-27 99% of the time with a direct hit, you have no clue...

All, expect a few for museums, sold to Poland for 1 Euro a piece :)

It's not 90%, and even that would be too often. And if the current damage model is seriously considered "finished" it says a lot about RAZBAM's quality control...

Even better, then it was a kinetic kill :smilewink:

Oh just the wild guess that a ~20kg continuous rod warhead should be able to deal with a fighter sized target... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/AIM-9_hitting_QF-4B_at_Point_Mugu_1974.jpeg Mind you, these are from the AIM-9 which has ~9kg of explosive... But maybe you're right and the M-2000 is somehow special and will just withstand such a force.

LOL, no. How in your logic would big planes be more vulnerable than small ones? And how do you know their wings are "way more fragile"? And for the MiG-21/F-5 argument, you do realize there is a difference between a small R-60 and an AIM-120? The mirage is a small, single engine fighter. It should go down with one MRM and it doesn't. The problem is very obvious.

Yea I guess, would still be nice to at least get a statement on this though.

Fair enough, either way I don't understand why RAZBAM doesn't comment on this very obvious bug. There have been multiple threads about this in the past, none of which got addressed. I just don't get what is so hard about saying when RAZBAM will adress this... Edit: Even more so because Zeus is actively replying in other threads, looks like straight ignoring issues for me to be honest.

Why is it then that every F-15/Su-27 that I hit goes down with one missile but only the M-2000 doesn't. It's clearly not netcode related, it only happens to the mirage.

No fighter should survive a direct hit from an AIM-120 and expect the M-2000 none of them in DCS do, that's just a fact...

No, it's not a radar as it is not for detecting and ranging targets. It's build to passively receive the emitter and then emit altered returns on that frequency, it has very different working principles.

That is not a radar, it's one of the L402 arrays which is the PAK-FAs ECM suite.

It doesn't need one, it has side looking AESA antennas :)

"It's a turkey"