Moos_tachu

I must admit a Jaguar would be a perfect complement to the Mirage 2000C in DCS. The european Frogfoot :)

I see you have a French-translated installation... nice reference to Tarantino's Pulp Fiction then :D (yeah I know, call me Captain Obvious...) :smartass:

One sure thing: in terms of polycount-friendly, no other aircraft comes close :D

Again, the M2000C is no multirole, it's an A/A fighter. And you already have plenty of full fidelity fighters in DCS, P-51 vs. FW190, F-86 vs. MiG-15... oh wait, maybe you mean modern fighters... which the MiG-21 is definitely not ;) I understand people on this forum can't help comparing the 21 and the 2000, and they won't stop doing it (at least until they get their hands on the Mirage and realize they don't play in the same league...) But stop wasting your time trying to find rational reasons for it, because they don't exist :)

OK... but that doesn't change a single word from my previous post: My point was not to go deep into the details, just to highlight that the A/A capabilities of the -5 and -9 are pretty much the same. This was answering to some statements like "the -5 is OK but the -9 is the ultimate A/A fighter" :)

The -9 is basically a -5 with additional A/G options (export version). Meaning that A/A capabilities are exactly the same, let aside some minor radar differences (RDY > RDY2). The -5 is Link 16 capable, this and almost every other aspects make it a very close match to the Gripen family.

Looks like you believe we're getting a Mirage III (again...) The M2000 has relaxed stability and FBW, which give it excellent nose authority at low speeds.

Talking about game... dodging the Tomcat's missiles, which were designed to intercept non-maneuvering bombers, a kid in a Mirage 2000 should be able to handle that.

Remember the M2000 has FBW controls. FBW disconnects the control stick from the control surfaces. So in the real aircraft, any feedback you would have would be purely artificial, and totally independent from the airframe's aerodynamic layout.

I have very good evidence of France NOT using it ;)

Based on factory smoke trails, there is some ;) EDIT: castor you got me on this one :)

CptSmiley also said they are still tuning this ;) However this is exactly the classic reaction of pilots transitioning from classic a/c to FBW a/c: they feel like they are flying "on rails" :) That's also how I felt when I flew the A380 simulator (pro), and we're talking about 500 tons of inertia here! Behavior is hardly different from the several times lighter A320.

Keep in mind that: - as CptSmiley said, the M2000 is a beast in roll - FBW counters inertia, by "exaggerating" control surface movement in the transition phases (when you go from neutral to max roll input, and back)

Please read my post again: "How sure am I of what I'm going to post?" Looking at the latest comments and video links, the gun snake does not look so much rubbish to me... Regarding the lollipop thing, I don't think it deserves an answer, does it? Now to comment on the snake going wild during rolls and other sudden pilot inputs, that might be disturbing in the first place, but from a pragmatic standpoint, dogfight is about firing your guns when you have a stabilized aim at your target; if you shoot during a roll, you'll be spraying bullets like hell!

Before posting this kind of comment, you should always ask yourself two questions: - How sure am I of what I'm going to post? (in this case, do I know which stick inputs the pilot is making?) - How is it going to be perceived by the guy who's just spent 14 hours a day over the past weeks to make it work?

Sure, I was not contemplating anything else than a later update after open beta release ;)

Does not sound like good news (or I got you wrong?) :noexpression:

Based on available info, I'm going to assume the following facts: - The current AI M2000-5 in DCS World is outdated (old 3D model), and Super 530D and MICA missiles are outdated (buggy FM). Obviously the S-530D will be reworked to fit with Razbam's M2000C module, but the fate of the M2000-5 and MICA is uncertain. - Razbam has announced that they may develop an AI C-135FR model, to better support M2000C refueling operations (currently available S-3B and Il-78 can do the job, but lack some consistency with the French Air Force context). So my question to Razbam and ED is the following: Would you consider updating the Mirage 2000-5 model? My view is that it would require only a limited amount of work, starting from the 2000C model: Remove the pitot tube from the nose cone, increase the length of one little antenna on the upper fuselage, add another little antenna on the vertical tail plane, and that's it! I'm sure that from the outside, no one will notice that a couple of MFD's are missing in the cockpit :) I think benefits would be great, as it would allow combined operations with Fox 3 capable AI packages, in big multiplayer COMAO / French Air Force contexts. Thanks in advance for your feedback :) PS: my dear forum mates, if you could refrain from polluting this discussion with off-topic comments such as "when do we get ARMAT and EXOCET" or "why don't you put MICA on the 2000C", that'd be greatly appreciated ;)

MiG-21 AB looks pretty good :) Though keep in mind that IRL, AB can look veeeery different (from blue to orange) depending on environmental / light conditions... Also true for canopy transparency.

Indeed, as can clearly be seen on your recent screenshots... Sorry for the stupid question ;)

Rather father than brother ;) And to avoid any misunderstanding, let's clarify that Brasil had Mirage III's and currently has Mirage 2000's, but never had Mirage F1's. Shame they won't have Rafale's... :happy:

Great video, thanks for sharing :thumbup: Quick question for Polychop team: In the vid and previous screenshots, I noticed the glass canopy (and the whole 3D model) seems to be lacking a shader texture for light reflection... Correct me if I'm wrong, or still to be implemented?

This will allow the Su-27 to detect the smaller and less detectable M2000 at a decent range... just as the smaller M2000's radar will detect the bigger and more detectable Su-27. Size of radar antenna is proportional to size of airframe, so it's a draw... Except that the M2000's shapes and hidden single engine give it far better RCS than the Flanker's shapes and nacelle-mounted twin engines. Another comment on the missiles: don't forget the 530D's higher speed. Higher speed means you hit first. The message to Flanker pilots is you'd better shoot first, or you're dead. So R-27R only you can worry, and if you have R-27ER, the longer range won't be too much of a luxury. Not that simple as you can see, and size is not always an advantage. Regarding your question on the capabilities of the M2000's ECM suite, it's hard to find reliable data for comparisons with its counterparts. But from everything I've heard and read, it's a domain in which French stuff has excellent reputation, putting it in the same class as US designs, and clearly above Russian designs. So that would be another mark in the Mirage's "plus" column for BVR combat vs. Su-27.

After yeeeears of forum disputes over the question, M2000 vs. F-16 dogfight is commonly admitted to be a close match.

The same it has in the real world: French Air Force's main air defence asset of the 1980's / 90's. It was designed to intercept Russian bombers, to fight MiG-29 and Su-27, and to compete with F-16 on export markets. So it should not be that bad...