blast

"Uh uh We don't, BUT when eyes don't help, logic may: If he wasn't trimmed for takeoff, what would have occured? Oh, yeah, the big red DECOL warning. Any warning (amber or red) = take off forbidden. Would he have took off with the very same warning telling him precisely "don't; there is something wrong with your aircaft re: take off configuration"? (I like Occam's razor, BTW)" The big red decoll warning is a feature that was already implemented in the previous version. You needed to trim or to press AP to correct the pitch just before take off in order to solve this. BUT once airborne, you didnt had to trim again or to activate the AP to maintain the pitch. Which is not the case with the new flight model. For the rest of your post, even if I do not completely agree with you I prefer to stop here because its becoming "lourd" and pedro will kill all of us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gZ6-6RbSEg

"DCS aims to model aircraft as accurately as possible, if you don't like that and would like something easier, there is always ACE Combat and War Thunder" when and where did i say i wanted something easier? You are confusing my post with the others guys' post. "As for the video, The pilot would be trimmed for takeoff " The pilot "would"... But in the facts, when do you see him doing this action in the video? "I think you’re just confusing how the AP and trim are supposed to be used." Then in which part you are not agree with me when i said : "The moments when he use the trim control is when auto-pilot is activated which is not for trimming purpose." "you can also always double tap the AP." You can even do it with one tap by pressing "AP standby" during the manouevre and release when you are done "In general, if you’re not in combat, use the AP and trim isn’t necessary, if you’re in combat there is a minimal amount of trimming needed" Hmmm no, it is the opposite. "Landing and occasionally when I have asymmetrical stores are the only time I find myself trimming" ok but we were talking about pitch trim not rolling.

But he's not using trim at all during take off. And at 00:58 we can see the auto pilot is ON which means he used the trim control for the AP most of the time. In the end the AP light is hidden by countermeasures box during approach which is impossible to say if AP was still ON. But you dont have to convinced me with this kind of documents. I would be 100% sure the day i will fly a real m2000C by myself :D (and im already get used to the new flight model in dcs)

Nice video, which proof that the pilot don't use trim at all during take off and landing which was exactly my point of this thread :thumbup: The moments when he use the trim control is when auto-pilot is activated which is not for trimming purpose. :music_whistling: And about your previous post, the criteria "the sim is realistic when the plane is not easy to control" is absolutely... bullshits! Ask real pilots what they think about the gazelle in dcs for example, they will answer that they would crash if gazelle was that hard in reality!

I missed the battle then coz i didn't see those previous post :doh: Anyway, Im already resignate to use the AP more often, and in few hours i will get used to it. Ty everyone for your lights.

From your sentence "The stick commanded pitch rate below 300kts and G load above 300kts" you can conclude that the flight model is not auto-trim? Please details more because this proof nothing. With my logic: Does the previous version was not better to land and take off, or to maintain pitch when diving? -> yes it was. And why was it better to maintain the pitch? -> because it was auto trimmed... This is a fact. By the way, where is your fact that the m2000 flight model is not auto trimmed in real? The document you provided doesnt even explains the flight model in details.

It seems im the only one to miss the "auto-trim" in the previous version so i guess this is for me. :music_whistling: Just a question, how do you know that m2000 pilots use the AP that much?

I haven't tried the air refueling yet with the new flight model. But i did land, take-off and dive for bombing, and in this 3 configurations i find the previous flight model way much better (since there was no need to trim). It was reacting like a modern fly-by-wire. Im surprise that people are not talking about this fact.

makes no sense what you say sorry.

Since it was already implemented in the previous version there is nothing to explain, he already know.

I don't understand how you can conclude from this document that the m2000c is not auto trim. The technical specifications you provided are not even mentioned in that document! For me it doesn't explain enough the m2000C behavior in details. That's why Razbam has more freedom to develop the features of the m2000c, like he did with the D2M sensor in which he made something acceptable for the community. Remember? But in the end, if the majority of you are happy to not have the auto-trim like we had on the previous version, fine... Its a game after all and not a true science. I'm just disappointed to see such a regression in the flight model.

I was waiting for that answer! How do you know the real mirage fly this way?

jojo My original post was lost into a vast conversation about different aspects of the m2000. Then I wanted to start a separated thread to not have just a simple answer like this. myHellijumper All taste are in nature! sceptre Good suggestion but deadzone/curves for my joystick are set correctly. I have the m2000 for one and half year now and what i described never happened before: I constantly need to trim or use the autopilot especially just after take off or during landing, or when diving for target bombing. Which is annoying especially for such a modern plane in my opinion. To give a comparison, now the m2000 react like an su27 where I have to trim to stabilize it. On the other hand the F15 is auto trimmed and react much better (like the m2000 before itslast update). jaguara5 I knew that and its exactly what I reproach to this new flight model. Before the last update the M2000 was auto trimmed and there was no need to trim like an old Sukhoi. In the end I don't understand why a regression like this is considered as an improvement of the flight model.

I dont know what is going on since the last update of the M2000 but even if the behavior in dog fight has been improved, now the flight model is not as stable as it was before when flying normally or diving to drop bombs. We always have to use the autopilot or to trim up/down like crazy to stabilize it. Is Razbam aware about it? Are they going to correct this issue?

I'm pretty confused: ED has just released a new update available for the public but there is still no trace of the M2000C in the log. What happened?

Im sure Mirknir will come back soon with a better map to make open conflict great again.

Yeah Piston but this thread is about how to tune DL/DG in order to use it. Since nobody know exactly how to calculate it from 2 coordinates, it makes this feature useless. Idk what you are talking about.

If I sum up, in DCS: - True north = grid north. - Ruler heading on f10 map = true north. - Latitude North Not equal to true north. - Tools in real life are not able to measure bearings and distances in DCS. Conclusion: DL/DG in INS is completely useless ??

Hey wait a minute. There is something that make me very confused now. In my previous post i said And your answered: Rlaxox uses in his the ruler with the map to measure the bearing. Does it means that he is doing... wrong??

Ty for your precision Piston. Could you bring your lights on that topic ?

You have to enter true north bearing as mentioned here by the developer. The ruler in the F10 view map show the bearing in true north.

I can confirm this issue too. We lose the lock very easily, even if the target is not notching.

Ty for your answer. That's a very interesting point that you mentioned but you are wrong (or not see my edit answer). As mentioned by developers here: The target offset can be set in x/y coordinates by using ΔL/ΔG: ΔL = Distance difference between the IP Latitude and the BAD Latitude expressed in kilometers to the North or South. (True North is used) ΔG = Distance difference between the IP Longitude and the BAD Longitude expressed in kilometers to the East or West. (True North is used) We enter in the INS coordinates referring to the true North and not the magnetic north. Then you can use the tool provided at the link above to calculate precisely these DL and DG. It works very well but i have used this INS bombing method with JTAC only so i don't need to be very accurate. I haven't use this method by its own already. EDIT I just realized what you meant by . Then in order to check what you said, I took 2 points on the map separated with a long distance (330km from Meneralnye airport and Tbilisi). And I measured the DL and DG with the ruler along the meridian and parallel (i displayed those lines by pressing LL in F10 map) in order to check if the web-tool returned the same results as my measurement in the game. And, I found an error (between the calculation and the measurements) along the parallel (horizontal line) of ~10km and a shift of 2km along the meridian (vertical line)... Can you confirm that shift? For an INS bombing we would take an IP separated from the target at ~15km. With a simple cross product I calculate that we would have an error of 500m along the parallel and an error of 90m along the meridian. Which is not good at all for INS precision, but good enough with a JTAC... Does it means that meridians and parallel lines are completely bullshits in DCS? Normally meridians should point true north (0° heading) which is not the case here? Same for parallels, they should be oriented to east (90° heading) which is not the case either? All those imply that DL/DL INS in M2000 is completely useless for INS bombing? Why DCS decided to draw meridians like this? Im sure there is a good reason...

you take the sum of all the features that have been done divided by the total features the end product will have. Honestly I don't know if it will be exactly 90% but i wont be surprise it would be even higher.

DCS game has a tiny community compared to block buster games (gta5, arma3, COD...). M2000 customers on dcs represents a very small market in the game industry which means not so much incomes for the sellers. And at the end of the day Razbam has to feed a family, pay bills, (pay employees?)... That's why they need to sell others products just in order to exist. Honestly, the M2000 in its actual state is 90% done. The remaining developments that are listed above are minor issues that can wait until the harrier release. By the way, how long it takes for the others modules to be 100% finished? the a10, the huey...? I'm sure their next M2000-D would benefit of their experience ^^