cauldron

Nit picker ! Yeash.... :D just a typo bro. I truly hope no one confuses one with the other:thumbup: Was hoping you'd post some puppy, kitten pics as they seem to work magic on our dear Devs hearts... hint hint....

So.... i just repeatedly ran some R530 engagements from up high to see if any improvements have been made on the Radar issues. Apart from some weird display of enemy planes below your boresight as you roll left and right ( the opfor planes 'apparent' position swings wildly 10nm to the left or right on the display, as if on the display the radar is not stabilized to the horizon ) the radar did not repeat earlier lost lock issues, this time :music_whistling: So, i'd love to post some tacviews, but can't right now, but suffice to say that i was engaging from 35k up to 40k feet a target at 1k feet and the target Ai would immediately turn to notch, and run. The radar lost lock right away, but as i turned to lock again and fire another missile i noticed the lost missile actually re-acquired the target and hit before my 2nd could get close.!!!!! i was amazed! So, i set up the mission again and again, same thing happened, even though i tried turns to avoid the notch the M2000 radar loses lock as soon as the target notches, but i would turn in immediately go to CCM mode, lock it up and, i could reliably re-acquire the launched missiles and they would home in, sometimes even better! (because they would "loft" themselves a bit before reacquiring.) Thank you Razbam, for really getting into the details. Just one thing .... could you please implement some reacquire logic into the M2000 radar, or at least not have the radar reset to level it elevation when it loses lock... it takes an eternity to manually move the antenna down back to where it was. .... please, with puppies kittens and puppy beagles on top!!!! cheers, sorry i didn't do any "real" testing i was having too much fun!!!!! :joystick::pilotfly:

Thank you guys. I tried some non scientific flying around and noticed that the RWR sings past a merge even if the opposing plane is in 5 pieces and burning. :lol: its gotta be the track delay. btw... my apologies for the Sabre comment.. i got out maneuvered because i went into a turn fight at .8M at 30k feet and lost badly. Got to cocky. though i still wonder...anyways thanks!

Yup, I'm a caveman. Thanks! :megalol:

Hi, Zeus, call me a caveman but.... Could you be more specific as to where the manual is? i can't seem to find it in my dcs folders nor in the documentation on the DCS site. thanks! P.S still love to fly the Mirage2000 !

Myself and all my friends have the same issues with multiple modules. ? How do we roll back to 1.5.3 while we wait for a hotfix if any to come along? Game 1.5.4 is unplayable with Track iR. thank you in advance.

Not all of us have the Mig-21.... please be helpful. :music_whistling:

It has been a while since i've been able to do any testing - sorry :cry:. Did a test flight in 1.5 mission editor of Mg2000 vs. Sabre yesterday. Besides the sabre being able to out maneuver the Mirage at any altitude over 10k feet and especially high altitude - which was a surprise to me. I noticed something strange: The RWR detects the Sabre's gunnery radar just fine as they approach each other for the merge, what is odd, is that after the flyby, it keeps chirping and signalling for about 8 seconds when clearly the sabre radar has no view to the mirage at all. I did the same maneuver with the FC3 planes and they work spot on. As soon as the sabre passes in the flyby the rwr stops. Just thought i'd throw this out there if anyone else can confirm this severe delay on updating. In the same test i also found that the Close combat radar mode would also have a large delay in acquiring the target even if the sabre is in boresight from the mirage and the radar is in the lateral C.C. mode. though it did capture the target quickly and repeatedly after 2 or 3 tries. seems odd behavior.

going to re post in M200 thread. please do not reply here. thanks.

should be posted on M200 forum, anyone know how to move a post?

It has been a while since i've been able to do any testing - sorry :cry:. Did a test flight in 1.5 mission editor of Mg2000 vs. Sabre yesterday. Besides the sabre being able to out maneuver the Mirage at any altitude over 10k feet and especially high altitude - which was a surprise to me. I noticed something strange: The RWR detects the Sabre's gunnery radar just fine as they approach each other for the merge, what is odd, is that after the flyby, it keeps chirping and signalling for about 8 seconds when clearly the sabre radar has no view to the mirage at all. I did the same maneuver with the FC3 planes and they work spot on. As soon as the sabre passes in the flyby the rwr stops. Just thought i'd throw this out there if anyone else can confirm this severe delay on updating. In the same test i also found that the Close combat radar mode would also have a large delay in acquiring the target even if the sabre is in boresight from the mirage and the radar is in the lateral C.C. mode. though it did capture the target quickly and repeatedly after 2 or 3 tries. seems odd behavior.

For anyone following, I'm sorry i have not been able to keep up my tests faster. RL :cry: I'll get back to it as fast as i can.

power for altitude and pitch for speed You guys are taking the phrase out of context, its absolutely true when you in context. The context being that you are on, or near, a stable approach to landing and need to make an "adjustment" to your approach... low speed --> reduce your drag a bit (pitch), descending too fast --> increase excess thrust i.e. add power. These are for making fine adjustments to a landing approach, and are tried and true methods of instruction because if your within the context of the instruction ;) they help teach how to make changes that help, and not changes that will de-stabilize your approach. So, you are right, if you take it out of context, and you are wrong if you are in the context of that instruction. If you don't believe me go out and try next time you are on a final approach: for ONE example: you'll find that if you initially set for proper pitch & power get on the appch path, that deviations in speed are usually pilot induced by pitch and that "getting slightly slow" has come with a tad of "too high" and thus the best response is pitch, not power, because your power is mostly set anyways, this is also assuming no wind sheers which have their own set of complications to deal with. All i can say is there is a very real reason for this universal teaching mechanic, and i suggest trying to find out why it works and when and why and when it doesn't - as it would only make for better pilots. But please, its not just a statement, and far from 'foolish', its been paid for in real blood and hard learned. It's not meant to be taken literally, as it has many variations, its a teaching tool which as all tools go can be misused - but if its used as the right way its a great and effective teaching tool for a pilot dealing with all the sensory input which happens in flight. Edit: I am assuming the thread can get back to a friendly debate, otherwise i'm sorry for "bumping" a thread that's gone sour.

That may be true of the century era of fighters, but modern planes pass thru transonic without a single buffet. You need to look at the gauges to realize you've gone supersonic. It has to be a bug.

Possible FBW issue I discovered during my tests that the FBW commands under pilot commands to hold full roll, and with no sideslip commanded- that near the end of the third complete roll at higher altitudes( 30k and especially 40k) the plane violently starts a sideslip and enters a MAX AoA condition in a sideslip. That's only about 5 to 6 seconds into a sustained max roll it departs controlled flight. I wonder if there is an issue with the FBW control inputs failing to maintain coordinated flight while commanded to max roll by the pilot. If anyone can reproduce these results please share them.

:book: So true! it's like they have a grudge against French weapon designs, i guess the Meteor coming out must totally suck as well.:doh: In all honesty in DCS the last heavy object you want hung under the wing before R550-ll and 530D would be a MICA missile. I don't think statistically an Ai M2000-5 has EVER shot anything down with one. That says a lot considering how neutered the R550-ll & 530D's currently are - and that's considering that they got some attention before the M2000c launch and got patched. It truly is beyond me. Do they not fly what they design?

At low altitudes+high speeds, NOE with low wing loading planes you should get a lot of .5g buffets, even for a delta wing. At higher altitudes it shouldn't. its a modern fighter plane. M2000 for its time was unique in that it had low wing loading but good high speed characteristics inherited from the delta, but also good turn rates because of its unstable condition center of lift vs CG. Its vortex generators and leading edge slats controlled by the FBW allowed it to overcome the shortcomings of the traditional deltas (ie. mirage lll's etc.) and have excellent sustained turn rates, though the F-16 was slightly better at that. These are the reasons this plane has such a following. It was, along with the F-16, the first true jet fighters using FBW to control an unstable center of lift configuration. For the same reasons new planes also follow similar design lines - Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon. Historically matched fighters only the F-16 could match its maneuverability, each holding advantages over the other. F-16 had higher Specific excess thrust especially at low altitude, and slightly better sustained turn rate, also with an emphasis at lower altitudes, as well as multi-role abilities. The M2000 held better roll rates, better initial roll, better instantaneous turn rate and better high speed handling, lower drag coef.'s etc. & higher top speed. So, AFAIK to answer your question no i don't believe such a plane would suffer such buffets IRL especially over MACH 1 and well below its top speed of M2.35 ish. [1] unless you were flying low altitudes and passing thru the turbulent air near the ground at M1.8 - i can't see it happening. Try to find out under what conditions it is happening and report it.:smartass: [1]: Bill Gunston, Mike Spike: Modern Air combat 0-517-412659 "...High, clean, brief dash speed M2.35; sustained M2.2; SL M1.2"

I am sorry, look it up anywhere - and you'll come to realize this - but i can assure you that 8knots of crosswind is NOT nothing. remember that giant big rudder will weather vain into the wind all along the wind will tug you off the other side if you don't correct. I can bet much more than 8 kts the plane may need to go wing low as well as crab to land. and in real life crosswinds always come with mechanical turbulence, so i'd count myself lucky to have 'sim' style crosswinds.

First Data set. Ok, after some long testing - mostly on how to get viable data in game. of note: the QBar speeds mentioned in the OP are in TAS, in case i missed mentioning it. It was a pleasure to note how the IAS speeds remained fairly consistent something that *should* be happening, and more importantly the AoA for each of these speeds at different altitudes for a given QBAr were almost identical - meaning the atmosphere model isn't doing anything weird between sea level and 40k feet - as well as validating my numerical analysis in the OP regarding Q gradients. YES:D ok so the results were interesting, i could not come up with a conclusion as to why the roll rate improved noticeably as altitude increased even though the plane was at the same QBAr. My best guess currently is that it has something to due with MACH. As a general/combined result the [ fyi. current Jan22,2016 update to 1.5 was in the testing ] i found the current build to be about 26% below the reference value of 190 degrees per second, averaging 151 degrees per second, which is noticeable to casual observation. included are my results, if needed i can provide the track files, and raw data for the graphs. Test parameters: clean aircraft-50% fuel set on unlimited. no more than 3 rolls were "continuous". lastest 1.5 build Jan22-23, 2016, not tested on NTTR2.0, FBW was set to normal & A2A mode. I will follow up with a >Q800 plot and a high AoA plot to finish this segment off, and get on to the other flight tests. Would be great to get independent validation of these results.:helpsmilie:

Shot down by own missile OK, i know this maybe beating a dead horse already but i found this so 'on the nail' as to post it here. Launch conditions: Mirage @M2.0 target @M1.6 and just under 2NM, altitude of both somewhere between 30k and 40k feet non maneuvering target tail chase. Results: Missile deploys drogue chute on launch and fails kinematically to reach target, Mirage promptly overtakes its own missile in pursuit of target and missile detonates its proximity fuse as Mirage passes by it. Couldn't have set this up if i tried. :cry: [ame] [/ame] Edit: addition... Weren't there at some time long ago air to air missiles that were dumb fire? Since the R550 flies straight for about 1.5seconds maybe we could use the gun piper to aim it and get the right launch range info?

:thumbup:

Cool! :thumbup: Thanks for that.

Jojo, I'm sure you agree to the point i was making. I would be really happy if this was actually about missing M.002.... really. It would mean we've already arrived at a good base and are being "picky" But lets not cross that bridge until it actually happens. My marks are goals to set for testing. You want me to set error bars? i think not. The point still stands... we need more and better data points that are more relevant and more tests. All i did was set the stage for that. Hopefully you could also participate :smilewink:

That's interesting.... I'll try to verify your results if I can hummingbird. Two independent tests better than one right?

We are all dancing about a single data point which is max speed clean in the 40k foot range, even probably at 50% fuel or less. This really should not be much discussion except for a detail. The plane Clean at 9t GW should make M2.2 structural limit {according to dev MACH2.2 limit imposed by "dynamic drag" which i have no idea what that is} So the fact that the flight envelope is so severely truncated for clean 9t GW should be an indicator of how easily it should reach M2.2 at optimum MACH altitude which is 40k feet. So for Clean 9t GW and M2.2: 1. We should be able to accel to in level flight from 54kfeet down to 31k feet. 2. At 30k feet it should top out at M2.16 3. 55k feet it should top out at M1.7 4. at 57k feet M1.5 to M1.6 5. For lower altitudes: 25k feet M1.9 20k feet M1.7 15k feet M1.55 10k feet M1.42 5k feet M1.34 sea level M1.26 { but not from level flight, must come from a dive and stabilize, as it should have trouble crossing the M1.1 barrier.} 6. Do this with the editor to get 9tGW and set infinite fuel. test ALL the data points to come up with a picture. It is clear that it struggles to get to M2.2 clean and light, but how much? you won't be able to tell unless you explore the flight envelope more. A severely truncated top speed for structural/flutter/intake MACH exceedance / etc. reasons should tip you off that tests to prove it "can make it" to M2.2 are irrelevant unless it is grossly in error. I have tested it and it cannot Make it to M2.2 clean and low fuel unless near the 40k's foot mark where it does "make it" how fast should it make we don't know, that's the point. 7. BTW this is for 9tGW and clean. it should make MACH2.2 as well for 9.4t + 2x magics between 34k feet and 51k feet. 8. It should make M2.1 at 40k feet to 43k feet at 10tGW+2xmagics+4x micas[which each[mica] havesame drag for these curves as the 530D] so it should actually exceed these values - by an unknown amount. 9. it should ALSO EXCEED in similar fashion at 40k feet 10.5tGW+2magics+4micas+center-drop tank[with fuel ;) ] MACH1.78 then we can START talking a bit better about what happened. IMO the most important data points are the "corners" where the plane aerodynamically is limited to just barely UNDER M2.2 and the heavier loads, if the plane matches those we can assume 40k feet clean performance has been meet as we have no data as reference for testing to the M2.2 limit other than "making it there" So PLEASE go an explore the playground that has been made for us, if you have been given a ranch to "play in" why stay in the same spot all the time and not explore the boundaries??? :joystick::pilotfly: