Moos_tachu

... which purpose is to clarify the M2000 capabilities :) This discussion is certainly not more off-topic than the countless posts asking for MICA / Exocet / ARMAT implementation in each and every thread of this forum section :D

The M2000 has quite a high level of automation. Matt might be missing 1 or 2 items from the full check list, but what we see looks consistent with a M2000 quick startup procedure. The same for INS alignment, it is very quick on M2000. Do you know what it takes to start an engine on A320 (a far more complex machine)? Once you have electrical power up, you just need to push 2 buttons: - Fuel Pumps ON - Engine ON All the rest is handled by the automation (FADEC).

Never mind. Indeed it is your right to be wrong.

And then you took it personally...

I'll pretend I didn't see the sarcasm and make a factual answer: If you want a French match to the MiG-21bis, it is the Mirage IIIE. Both are modernized variants from the 70's - just as Azrayen said. Again, if you're too lazy to google it, the answer is in DCS: take a look at the MiG-21bis cockpit and compare it with the M2000C (vids and pics) => clearly not the same era in cockpit design!

Your feeling of F-15 superiority over Su-27 in DCS comes from the fact that DCS multiplayer confrontations are stereotyped: 95% of BVR face-to-face with no original tactics. In this context, only Fox 3 vs. Fox 1 makes the difference, because casual Su-27 pilots do not have the skills and tactics to properly engage F-15 with this disadvantage. IRL, with well trained Su-27 pilots flying their aircraft to its strengths, the F-15 would have a hard time. Open a book and you will see that indeed the F-15 and Su-27 WERE designed as counterparts. Then of course the F-15 got regular upgrades over the 80's and 90's (including Fox 3 capability), which the Su-27 lacked, due to the political and economic situation in USSR / Russia during this period. You end up in the 2000's with a more capable F-15, to which Russia's answer is the Su-35 (basically a Su-27 with upgraded avionics and Fox 3). But this does change the fact that they are aircraft of the same category, in terms of overall capability. Fox 3 is a detail, though an important one. We are not speaking the same language here: I'm talking about aircraft capabilities, you answer with historic context of employment. If you want to go down this road, a Russian offensive in the 80's would have also involved MiG-29 as a frontline fighter. And the French opponent to that threat would have been... Mirage 2000, because that's all we got! So which is M2000's counterpart, Su-27 or MiG-29? To know it you need to think capability: Airframe size, radar size, engine power, fuel quantity, payload, etc. Open the DCS editor and put an F-15 / F-16 / Su-27 / MiG-29 / M2000 side-by-side on the tarmac, fully loaded. Just look at the size difference and you will clearly see the two different categories: F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 = light fighters F-15 / Su-27 = heavy fighters If you want a French equivalent to the latter it would rather be the Rafale, though still lighter and more next-gen, so not a perfect match...

"Its" main opponent, you mean the F-15, not the M2000? Indeed the F-15 and Su-27 are equivalent, capability wise. In the smaller category, F-16 / MiG-29 / M2000 can be considered as counterparts.

Wrong. The French Air Force used the AS37 Martel. This was the one and only missile shot by Jaguar's during the anti-radar raid over Lybia. EXPORT version. As far as I understand, seekers were rather downgraded compared to the Martel. And as an export version, the ARMAT has never been in the French inventories. Hence it has never been mounted on a Mirage 2000C RDI, except for Paris Air Show static display.

Right, but please (and this is not intended specifically to you Zomba), stop comparing Mirage 2000 with MiG-21 ! MiG-21 is a 2nd gen. jet fighter, Mirage 2000 is 4th gen. It's like comparing F-100 with F-15! To clarify: Gen: 1st > 2nd > 3rd > 4th > 4.5 US: F-86 > F-104 > F-5 > F-16 > F/A-18E/F RU: MiG-15 > MiG-21 > MiG-23 > MiG-29 > Su-35 FR: Mystere IV > Mirage III > Mirage F1 > Mirage 2000 > Rafale You would find different definitions and classifications, but the above is the most commonly used. Then I agree that fighting the F-15 in the M2000 will be a challenge, but this is due to the F-15 being more capable (bigger aircraft, bigger radar, bigger engines, more fuel, more missiles). Besides this, they are the same generation. It's just that the M2000 has been designed as a counterpart to the smaller / less capable F-16. The counterpart to the F-15 would have been the Mirage 4000, but France did not buy it. Too big for a little-big nation...

Zeus has already clarified that point: They are making the 2000C because they have the Flight Manual. No such information is available for any other Mirage 2000 models (N, D, -5 and derivatives). As Azrayen said, this makes them impossible to model at DCS standards. Simple as that. And indeed, if Razbam was doing the D, you can be sure that even more people would be whining (including those who are currently complaining about the C). The 2000D is the ground attack variant, a specialized aircraft, no guns, only two Fox 2 missiles for auto-defense, limited speed in its standard configuration with 2 subsonic external tanks (knowing that in the French Air Force it NEVER flies without them), etc. As a mud lover I would enjoy it a lot, but I'd be part of a minority... Anyway, too much classified data so we won't have it. DCS: Mirage 2000C is definitely the best state-of-the-art simulation of French-made aerial warfare we can get today. Two years ago I would't have even dreamt about it. I'm not naive, I know that we could repeat the above ten more times, the day after someone would be posting here to ask for a 2000-5 Mk2 with MICA, Exocet and ARMAT, but anyway......

Give me the complete 2000-5 documentation and I'll do it myself, I promise :D PS: -5 Mk2 and -9 are both export versions (Greece and UAE, respectively)

+1 Hence its nickname in the 80's : Radar De M... :D I'm not aware of any French Air Force pilot complaining about RDI upgrade! Funny to see people asking for stuff they have no idea of the performance. The same applies to ARMAT... Exocet's performance is great, but you just need another aircraft to carry it (Super Etendard's mission). MICA's performance is... probably great, though highly classified. Which means you will need to wait 20 years to get any accurate simulation.

Edited, sorry for the confusion ;)

I am really puzzled to see how bold some forum users are in their criticism, contrasting greatly with their very poor knowledge (of the Mirage 2000C). All along the hundreds of posts I have read in this section of the forum, only two users seem to know their stuff with this aircraft (Azrayen' and Jojo, not to name them). Otherwise, it looks like the average sim pilot can't tell the difference between a Mirage III and a Mirage 2000... Come on guys, less forum crap posting and more documentation reading, you have three months ahead to get familiar with your future A/A workhorse! PS: of course I don't include the devs in the average users ;)

I would like to believe that, I really would :) But a naval aviator in Argentina would fly Super Etendard, not Mirage III. And whichever he would fly, he would not be tired about it! Especially when you know the last Mirage III's will be retired from service in a couple weeks (days?), will not be replaced, and will be deeply missed... Anyway... Coming back to the MICA, it will be decades before we get an accurate simulation of this missile (sorry guys). MICA is so classified that when French Air Force goes to Red Flag, they don't debrief MICA kills in the main room as others do, they use a separate room for authorized French personnel only, and then they share the results. At least that's what they did a few years ago... As a student, my solid fuel rocket teacher was an engineer who had worked on MICA propulsion. The only thing he knew about the missile's performance was that you can take the range from the marketing leaflet and add +xx%. But he had no idea how much xx was. So the best MICA we'll ever have in DCS would be at best a thoughtful guess from the real stuff.

Looks like you don't read other threads before posting, as your MICA question has already been answered a dozen times in this section of the forum. Including 5 minutes before you posted... So don't easy me on this pls, dude :)

If we go this road, why not giving AIM-120 to the F-86? This would also help a lot for Sabre vs. Flanker... Real Mirage 2000C cannot handle MICA, so the DCS aircraft will not. If you have a problem with that ask Dassault, not Razbam ;)

You don't need a pod to handle CCRP.

To clarify: With traditional controls: Your input on the HOTAS means "I want a 10° angle on my control surfaces" (just an example). The output you get from the aircraft is a 10° angle on your control surfaces. The consequence is a pitch up attitude, and depending on speed/altitude/etc., the result might be a more or less 10° AOA. With FBW controls: Your input on the HOTAS means "I want a 10° AOA". The output you get from the aircraft is a 10° AOA. To achieve this, the flight computers will command whatever angle of the control surfaces is required to get a 10° AOA, taking into account the speed/altitude/etc. And while doing that, they obviously filter any inputs which would result in going out of the desired aircraft flight enveloppe. Very simplified and not really accurate, as classic FBW systems would pilot in G rather than AOA... But otherwise it would take several pages to explain FBW :)

En mieux fait, tu veux dire avec moins de fautes que dans les 4 lignes ci-dessus ? Je ne suis pas sur d'en trouver autant dans les 361 pages du manuel de Black Shark... L'equipe de traducteurs benevoles avait meme pousse la maniaquerie jusqu'a mettre des signes de ponctuation, et des majuscules au debut de chaque phrase ! En tout cas si le but de ton post etait de proposer ton aide pour le boulot en cours sur l'A-10C, non merci, on devrait arriver a s'en passer.

Serial #: 00186 Location: Toulouse, France

Si tu as une version russe et que tu installes le patch russe, en toute théorie tu devrais te retrouver avec une version 1.0.1 qui fonctionne... en russe. Pour la manip aucune idée, tu devrais plutôt poser la question dans le forum anglophone, vu qu'ici c'est un forum de support dédié à la version française, et que c'est cette dernière que possède la grande majorité des gens qui postent ici (modos compris).

Si possible pas Vista 64...... :music_whistling:

Je ne suis ni ED ni imprimeur, mais une langue différente c'est une série différente, donc pas d'économies d'échelle...

... Peut-être une solution à ton problème dans ce topic : désinstallation propre des drivers vidéo en utilisant un utilitaire qui va bien, DriverSweeper en l'occurrence, comme je le suggérais plus haut dans l'un de mes posts (voir ci-dessous pour mémoire). As-tu essayé cette solution ?