[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

[...]

Hi,

First I want to thank you for this detailed analysis, it looks well done, pertinent and your questions are interesting.

I will try to answer them and go beyond.

We can be sure that the aircraft starts at around 100% fuel thanks to the displayed Jx at the start of the video: 0.68/0.69. The Jx represents the acceleration of the aircraft and is very important because it indicate the good health of the engine. For a standard atmosphere, 15 °C, sea level and no payload, the Jx should be at around 0.68.

Thanks to the above we know that the conditions are likely close to a standard atmosphere and 15 °C.

Now let's talk about altitude. At 2:17, just after the sustained turn, we can see that the aircraft is at around 800 ft barometric (3000 ft radar but the radar altimeter must be displaying incorrect information) and from other parts of the video, I can guess that the airbase is the BA115 Orange-Caritat located at 200 ft MSL.

So the aircraft is flying at around 1000 ft MSL, I find that at that altitude, standard atmosphere, 15 °C, 75% fuel the aircraft can sustain 6.9 g.

Now let's talk about temperature. The M53-P2 is very susceptible to temperature changes as a 15 °C increase in temperature reduces the engine thrust by ~5%.

If I test at 20°C with a standard atmosphere, 75% fuel the aircraft can sustain 6.8 g.

I find that even allowing reasonable deviation, the module is deviating at a maximum of 0.1 g from the video. Let's also take into account that in the video, the pilot is not aiming for a perfect sustained turn and we can see in the screenshot that he is gaining a little bit of speed (acceleration chevrons above the FPM). A perfect sustained turn would result in more load factor.

I hope this helped to demonstrate that our model is coherent with the real performances of the aircraft, I'm open to continue talking about this video or about other data-points that we have like the engine out landing procedure to further demonstrate the accuracy of our model.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

2 hours ago, Despayre said:

 

Ignore the experts and people that have actually flown the planes... and arrive and your own conclusions and then assert them as equally factual... sure, what could go wrong?

On an unrelated note, I have a flat earth to sell you... 

Please guys be respectful.

I welcome constructive discussion and criticism and don't want it to be shut down.

Let's be respectful of everyone and try to move this discussion forward.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

52 minutes ago, cmbaviator said:

Is it normal that i can't see the images ? i would like to see them  Thanks

I can see them, I don't know why you can't.

Here are the links

Video screenshot: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1037846602670407700/1037857598881402971/image.png

Mirage turn rate chart a sea level : https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/544216334045544448/1016340654353305681/unknown.png

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

I mean didn't helljumper just admit they have no concrete documentation?  and they  formulated  that "data" based on cobbling together pincemeal sources like some Dogfight videos and some SME opinion?  SO i dont see why people cant question its authenticity  of the new FM change when the data are based on what amount to estimates relative to say an F16 turn rates taken from actual official documentation like a HAF manual.....

While we effectively don't have concrete performance documentation (because none are available to the public), we didn't formulate the FM by only "cobbling together piecemeal sources".

We based the FM on known data points like the video above and procedures like the engine out landing that give us a very good base for what the aircraft should be capable of. We then built the FM following aerodynamic studies to create the coherent and realistic wing. After that we talked with SME about the behavior and performance of the aircraft to fine tune FM where needed.

While I'm sure our FM is not 100% correct to the real aircraft in the whole domain, I think it's a good enough representation and most of all, the closest possible with the data available to us.

We also have demonstrated, using the video above, that the Mirage STR at around sea level and 400 kt is correct while we have yet to see a credible source that would demonstrate that the aircraft performances are incorrect.

But don't get me wrong, I agree that our model is not based on turn rates from actual documentation and thus is not as solid as the DCS F-16 model for example. People are right to question the authenticity of the Mirage FM but we are providing a lot of information to backup our model.

Thanks.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to share the following with you guys

From this video at around 2:15 we can see the following :

400kt, 6.8 g, PS~0.

For this video the Mirage most likely does not have 100% fuel and surely is at least a little bit above sea level.

If we compare with the DCS Mirage:

I find that we are pretty close :).

[AV-8B N/A MANUAL CH 1-15]

On 11/1/2022 at 4:31 PM, AlphaJuliet said:

Hello Lads,

Here to give a quick heads up on the official manual.
As it was said above, @baltic_dragon has paused his work on the manual while we rework the designation system of the AV8B.

As a workaround, I direct you towards this forum or our Discord for help, towards the Chuck's guide that is regularly updated by the stellar @Charly_Owl that I would like to thank on behalf of Razbam Simulations for his relentless work for the community despite the constant flow of changes this module is getting through, and towards the most recent Youtube tutorials made by the community.

As features are changed or added, I'll make clarification/explanation posts in this forum.

I know I've not been active a lot on ED's forums since this summer, I will commit more around here to make sure that intels are properly broadcasted to you guys, and bugs reported and investigated.

We are aware that having a full fidelity module released without a proper official and exhaustive manual is not acceptable, and we're working with the resources we have to deliver it to you guys as soon as we can. 

Cheers,

A.J.

I want to join Alpha in thanking Chuck/Charly_Owl for his guides that are a invaluable help for the community.

[RWR customization faulty]

Hi,

The SERVAL RWR is limited to 1 character/symbol to identify threats, that is why your customization is "faulty".

We don't plan on changing this behavior as it is realistic.

Thanks.

[M2000C Default values]

9 hours ago, elChotacabras said:

Hi all.

Is there any options for change values by default like bingo, detot quantity, ECM panel etc ? Example: start with detot at 0 or bingo at 800...

Which are all the settings.lua vars ? Have to say im in love with the posibility of cartridge load. Any place where see all that options ?

Thank you very much, im in love with this module.

Hi,

These default settings are not available to be edited at the moment, we will think about implementing them in the future?

The Mirage data cartridge only load navigation points.

Thanks.

[Mirage 2000 outturning F-18 at low speed- is that accurate?]

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Jx coef in HUD for determining acceleration? That means you consider the thrust minus drag? What if the drag is also too high? If you'd want to analyze the "static thrust" parameter alone in a sim to not be affected by drag you'd really want to know your exact weight, start a climb from as close to sea level as possible at critical AoA (for lowest radius) and go perfectly into the vertical at zero G while reducing thrust to idle to not climb too much from sea level altitudes then go to full AB such that when it comes on your airspeed will be close to zero (get used to do it right) so that you could simulate a static thrust on the plane and if you have set a plane weight which matches the engines thrust, then you should be having the plane's X acceleration close to zero. The weight force is your engines thrust. Tweak the weight of the plane and redo the test until it equals the max AB thrust into the vertical near zero airspeed close to sea level.

Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?

Here is how:

(Weight * lift axis G load) / (0.5 * velocity^2 * ref. area).

Do that using actual sim data and you'll get around 1.65 and at lower speed even more than 1.75. It's not my words, it's the numbers, go check them out.

Here are 2 good fresh tracks:

1.65 for DCS M-2000 CL max not 1.4, not a realistic 1.3.acmi 396 kB · 0 downloads

DCS M-2000 maximum lift coef of 1.65.trk 2.35 MB · 0 downloads

Regards!

 

It's not like Kercheiz wrote the FM .

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

real aircraft's almost 1.3 maximum lift coef at that AoA

Can we ask for a source or is that common knowledge ?

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

The engine thrust is overrated for both MIL and full AB exactly as it was initially left that way

Can we also have a source on that ? Because we used some publicly available documents that details the M53-P2 thrust and consumption curves to create the engine. We reduced its thrust compared to the document as they didn't take some limitation into account so if anything it can be slightly underperforming.

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

It's a DIY test to compare it in DCS with the F-15 or F-16

How do you know how the 2000 is supposed to perform compared to these aircraft ?

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

which turns out to have erratic behavior in various conditions

Can you create a separate bug report with tracks or videos that highlight these CDVE issues ?

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

What if the drag is also too high

Drag was tuned using SME feedback as well as know procedures like the engine out glide and landing procedure, will you also tell us that this is incorrect ?

46 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula?

If you want to have a constructive discussion, drop the superiority tone.

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'm actually very constructive in telling what's wrong. I'm respectful and looking forward for the benefit of DCS, NOT it's drawbacks as people like you and other actually tend to think. The way I'm treated by some who don't want to listen, verify or learn is actually the one non-constructive, sorry!

I'm not the only one that is finding you unconstructive here, maybe everyone is not wrong and maybe the issue is your tone, I really don't want to close this topic but it's only up to you.

[Mirage 2000 outturning F-18 at low speed- is that accurate?]

19 minutes ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

I like how people like you throw all sorts of statements out of their own imagination with little knowledge. Deltas not stalling eh? Well, you've said "stall speed". Well, for the sake of what you understand, actually no other wing has a stall speed, because the stall has the only correct definition it was born with at the beginning of aviation, not the derived and wrongly understood definitions that they teach you at flight school! If you have some basic knowledge of aerodynamics, what is a stalled condition by definition? Let's see your answer!

Now, an F-18 can maintain 1G even when flying as slow as 80 KCAS (yes, at a lower weight) and of course can slowly maneuver in roll-yaw at the same time, but your wannabe M-2000 lover can't do that without going constantly under 1G when flying below 100KCAS even if being 2 seconds away from fuel starvation. I'm talking facts not biased imagination! The F-16 can also hold 90KCAS for the same condition, again with better handling characteristics even than those of the F-18, not to mention how well above those of the M-2000. Indeed the delta wings (including those of the F-16) perform a bit better (not tremendous, but it counts) at higher and higher altitudes due to small details with big effects, such as the Reynolds number which favors the deltas and provide a somewhat increased L/D ratio compared to denser air, but I don't wanna go off-topic for these details.

3 year flaming necro, how nice.

Please be nice to people, your behavior here is not constructive and I will lock the topic if the flame war resumes.

If you have issue with the Mirage FM please create a post/bug report with a video/track of the behavior and your sources showing the behavior incorrect.

Thanks.

[Startup procedure has changed or broke.]

2 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

My binds have not changed. But behavior of Mirage module has. So far only in cold sart respect.

I did a cold start 2 days ago and it was working as expected, can you share a video of you doing a cold start ?

And a screenshot of the Mirage special option too please.

Thanks.

[Startup procedure has changed or broke.]

4 minutes ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

With external power ON.

Turn fuel pumps ON. 

Press and hold start . Watch until power is at 11%. Advance throttle to IDLE. Watch until power settles on 49-54%.
This is broken now. Advance to throttle DOES NOT advance to idle!

 

 

I'm not understanding the issue, could you provide use a track or video highlighting the issue ?

Thanks.

[Mirage 2000 Countermeasure counter clarifications]

12 minutes ago, cmbaviator said:

only read the chuck guide but can't remember if he speaks about that ?

Yeah, and that's why it's a guide and not a manual, it's bound to be missing information compared to the manual. That's the point ^^.

You would have to ask Chuck it's been a long time since I read it.

[Mirage 2000 Countermeasure counter clarifications]

The above is also explained in the manual and was detailed in the patch notes and kneeboard, RTFM guys :).

[Mirage 2000 Countermeasure counter clarifications]

33 minutes ago, Archi said:

Hello fellow mirage enthusiasts,

 

A couple updates ago the ridiculous 100+ flares of the mirage were corrected into it's 16 internal (maximum amount of internal flares with an "inverted V" release pattern) and up to 48 using the pod. However, the counter in the rearming menu is still quite confusing by still being able to select more than 100 and even more for chaff (not sure if it really does anything?). At the moment my solution is to not touch the counters at all like requested by the devs in the kneeboard. Are there any plans to correct this to make it clearer as to how many flares and chaff I am taking?

As said above, this is the only solution we found to have all flare/chaff combinaison possible with the pod.

The CM selection system for DCS is quite old and was not designed to support countermeasure pods or aircraft with fixed CM mixes and quantities. We tried to remove the sliders, but without them the CMs were refilled when rearming the aircraft.

For the CMs to work as intended, the slider should be kept at their initial values which represent the absolute maximum chaff and flare capabilities of the aircraft, not the number of flare that will be available.

Hope the above helps, thanks.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

38 minutes ago, cmbaviator said:

basically a delta wing fighter jet wouldn't be able to last long against a 2 circle aircraft like the Viper because of the enormous drag of the delta wings, some says that since the Engine buff of the mirage, you can do like 10+ circles.

6 hours ago, cmbaviator said:

i mean if you have some aerodynamic knowledge, it’s impossible pour a delta wind aircraft to be successful in a 2 circle because the wing is a huge aerobrake

Sorry, I don't understand these sentences as questions.

Anyways, I answered your question, the Mirage 2000 design resolve a lot of the issues that previous delta winged aircraft had.

Thanks.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

25 minutes ago, cmbaviator said:

basically a delta wing fighter jet wouldn't be able to last long against a 2 circle aircraft like the Viper because of the enormous drag of the delta wings, some says that since the Engine buff of the mirage, you can do like 10+ circles.

 

GS did a F16 vs mirage 3/4 months ago so before the update and the mirage was clearly struggling to say the least. However i don't now since the new engine update

Again, based on what data ?

The Mirage 2000 is not a Mirage III or a F-106, it's design is very different:

• The wing behave like a LERX delta thanks to the strakes on the intakes which is less draggy than a delta.
• The aircraft is unstable, needing the elevons to counter the nose tendency to climb in a turn, reducing the drag
• The slats helps a lot with the drag at AoA.

As I said before, we tuned the FM based on SME feedback and known data-points like videos and procedures. We were forced to use these methods because no reliable public data exists for the Mirage 2000 turn performances.

Again, "armchair pilot knowledge" cannot be used to tune an aircraft FM.

So unless you can provide solid, numerical data (STR, ITR) for the module that obviously does not make sense, we cannot take your feedback into account.

Thanks.

[Chaff usefull against FOX1s ????]

On 10/25/2022 at 8:43 PM, cmbaviator said:

well im a bit confuse, what the point of having only a radar to receive wave ? to track a jamming aircraft ?

 

because its still the airbone radazr that guides the S530D ?

The Mirage radar illuminates the target and the Super 530D guides on the reflected radar waves, that's how all SARH missile works. Some missile have some datalink so they can guide before they see the target.

This means that the missile can also guide on a jamming aircraft without its supporting radar.

Thanks.

[Should the M2KC be able to hold up against the Viper in a 2 circle fights?]

4 hours ago, cmbaviator said:

Hello,

 

After discussing with some player on the tempest server.

I was told that since the new engine modelisation early august, the mirage can know hold up against a Viper in a 2 circles fight which should be in reality is impossible as the F16 should overrate the Mirage anytime.

 

However, i was also told that F16 FM is solid accurate and so is the Mirage so how come the mirage holds up in a 2 circle fight?

 

Also how use the mirage in a 2 circle fight? i was told to pull hard until you reach 420 IAS and then relax the stick in order to maintain 420 ?

 

What's your opinion ?

 

thanks

Hi,

Unless you have data on the Mirage turn rate, we will stick to our model which is based on SME feedback and known data points.

We can't use "this plane should be inferior to this plane" feedback as it is not based on true data.

Thanks.

[Chaff usefull against FOX1s ????]

Hi,

A radar guided semi-active missile like the Super 530D has half a radar in it's nose, its seeker is a radar antenna that can only receive radar waves, not emit them.

So even though the Mirage radar is still tracking the target, the missile might decide to track the chaff cloud instead. The opposite can also happen, where it's the radar that is tracking the chaff while the missile tracks the target.

In the first scenario, you can't really do anything about it, the chaff cloud will dissipate or the target aircraft move away from it so it is not illuminated anymore, the missile is lost. In the second scenario, if you manage to understand that your radar is tracking chaff, the missile might still be flying toward the target so you can switch to PSIC Super-pointé mode to "manually" illuminate the target with the radar.

Hope the above helps, thanks.

[No AoA displayed on the HUD / VTH ?]

Hi,

The Mirage 2000C has no AoA display on the VTH.

The AoA was included as an option in previous version, before the VTH rework. Now, we included an option to have the AoA indicator always visible so 2D player can still see it without TrackIR.

Thanks.

[question after starting up]

28 minutes ago, razo+r said:

1) I think those are lit because you are still attached to ground power

2) Auxiliary gun sight. You can leave that off, at least for most of the time.

All is correct

[[PENDING UPDATE] M-2000C TAF]

Hi,

Thanks for the tracks. We were able to find a bug where the LOS check was not done in some case and fix it.

The fix should be able next update.

[[PENDING UPDATE] M-2000C TAF]

16 hours ago, slawek39 said:

TAF continues to report the target even when ground radar can no longer detect it.

Hi, can you provide a track showing the issue ?

Our implementation takes line of sight into account so it's a strange bug. Are you sure that the TAF target is still update and does not just follow the last target course ?

[How does the D2M works ?]

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

It's interesting to know that the main issue with this kind of device is the false alarm rate.

If it's too high, you get accustomed to alarms while you perfectly know there is no danger, and stop reacting accordingly. 

Even if in theory only missile engines are detected, false alarms can be triggered by most heat sources (sun, engines, ground fires, etc...). 

Hence the idea that D2M should only be used on missions where they are useful : low level and high MANPAD threat. 

Exactly, using the D2M in an air-to-air mission is counter productive. You'll most likely only get false alarms/wingman fired missiles and at the point where it could be useful, you'll most likely not be able to evade de threat.

All that on top of consuming your precious MAGIC coolant.