sedenion

An aileron in "upward" position may be compared to "inverted flaps" but not the spoilers. Aerodynamically speaking, flaps "exagerate" (and/or extands, depending design) the wing profile, increasing air flow depression in the wing extrados, increasing lift (and drag by the way). Spoilers act very differently: located on the wing extrados, they are making an obstacle to the air flow, creating turbulance, so kills the lift on that wing section (like a localised stall), and inducts a lot of drag. While flaps are here to increase lift, spoilers are here to create a stall effect (which cannot be reasonably named negative lift).

Also found an interesting quote about the F-15 (which is also high-wing configuration, with ailerons) adverse (and proverse) yaw, and how it was managed within the hydro-mechanical control system : https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm

I think this was indeed something like this. Mirage F1 was developed during a time France were more NATO independent and probably rather thought of internal territory protection rather than extra-territory intervension and probably even lesser of coordinated operations with other country. In this context, the air defense protocol is basicaly : detect incoming intruder (usually a bomber) -> send interceptor, destroy the threat... no need IFF in such case.

From what I a found, the fact high-wing places the center of lift above the center of gravity tends to increase roll stability (aircraft "want" to stay leveled) which can produce Dutch Roll (result of adverse yaw) in case the roll stability is stronger than the yaw stability. However, this is a general case for commercial or transport aircraft, which the Mirage F1 is obviously not. This also comes against the statement I quoted in the beginning of this thread, which describe the Mirage F1 as "very stable in yaw" but "unstable in roll". As general consideration about Dutch Roll (adverse yaw) and wing configuration: Source: https://aeronotes.weebly.com/dutch-roll.html

I think the equation "Less lift=less drag" is true only for regular wing profile. Indeed, speaking about wing profile, the less difference is between extrados and intrados, the less there are lift and drag. An theoretical absolutly thickless flat wing (which does not exist) would have no lift and no drag. However, here we are talking about spoilers, which are control surfaces that produce turbulence in the wing extrados, turbulence that indeed break the lift (like a stall) but also induce drag. But, anyway, I am not fluid mechanics physicist.

It is pretty clear that framerate drop correlated with radar lock have almost nothing to do with graphic card, you should specify your CPU and especially amount of RAM memory. Too many people underestimate importance of RAM memory, DCS use huge amount of RAM. (I don't have this problem but am curious and would like to understand what is going on)

Pretty clear in fact: The search area is between 0.2NM (400m) and 3.7NM (7km)... while the presented scale on the scope switches to its minimum range, which is 7NM (13km). What is confusing here, is that the scope scale is up to 7NM, while the actual search area is up to 7km (3.7NM). I guess CSF engineers designed radar internal computing and specifications in metric system then later created the displays and "user" parameters in NM to fit aeronautic standards.

[Disclaimer, this is a 'My Two Cents' post] From what I understand about adverse yaw and spoilers (yes that is pretty new for me, but I learn quickly) the Mirage F1, due to its short swept wing configuration (like F-5 or F-16) should not have noticable adverse yaw except at very low speed. It is reasonable to think that Dassault even added spoilers (which is unusual on such wing configuration) to counter the little (but existant) adverse yaw to allow an almost perfect roll behavior. One can even suppose that spoilers are not active at all above a specific speed. In other words, it may be an error to think that Mirage F1 have spoilers to counter a naturally severe adverse yaw. It may be rather the inverse: Spoilers may be here to "kill" the small amount of adverse yaw that exists at low speed.

This should work... problem may come from the keystroke syntax or keystroke modifier key. // if(LONG_S3) { MapKey( &Dev, S3, TEMPO(DX3, DX73, TEMPO_TIME)); } //< comment this // else { MapKey( &Dev, S3, DX3); } //< and this MapKey( &Dev, S3, R_CTL + R_SHIFT + 'x' ); or // if(LONG_S3) { MapKey( &Dev, S3, TEMPO(DX3, DX73, TEMPO_TIME)); } //< comment this // else { MapKey( &Dev, S3, DX3); } //< and this MapKey( &Dev, S3, L_CTL + L_SHIFT + 'x' ); To be honest, I almost never used keystroke syntax in TARGET advanced script, so I would not be a best help instantly If you have troubles, open a new topic with this specific question...

What did you tried exactly ? I suspect you changed the wrong thing... If you want to substitute DX with key stroke on a specific physical button, you must modify the proper Mapping function call withtin the proper mapping file header: MapThrottle.tmh for Warthog Throttle MapJoystick.tmh for Warthog Joystick MapJoystickF18.tmh for Warthog F18 Stick etc.

You can edit the script replacing a DX assignment by keyboard stroke, but this is counter usage of the script. Why do you want/need a key stroke instead of a button ?

I notice thing... In this video it land with flaps full down, while what is called "Flaps Landing position" in controls corresponds to the intermediate position (and that's how I usually landed since now). The manual simply don't mention flaps... Some clarifications would be appreciable. Anyway, from my of view it still suspicious how touchy it is to land with 20% fuel and flap to intermediate position. Edit: Retried with flaps full down, still hard to land bellow 150kts... flaps increase drag making the aircraft a little easier to stop, but it still heavy on touch down.

Yep, almost like the first versions of the 2000, like tearing out tape...

I am almost sure that the color is rigorously the same in both photos... The visual hue and value differences come from the photographies (camera setting, photographic film, etc.). The first one is more contrasted with dominant in red and blue, the second is less contrasted with an abvious green dominant. Look at this, it appear even darker than the first one, despite the fact it is actually a French livery like the second : This appear to have a more correct color calibration, but maybe a little too bright:

I assume you mention slats instead of spoilers, anyway, jumbo jets also have spoilers, and slates... One will say they are not used the same way, ok, but the main consideration, before the presence of this or thes control surfaces: The Tomcat is a giant chopping board of almost 30 tons with variable geometry wings, while the Mirage F1 is a small 10 tons dart with short fixed swept wings. It is basicaly like comparing a Hummer with a Renault Fuego...

The fact is that it is hard to land bellow 150kt with ~25% fuel... I managed to land around 160kt/11° AOA and that was not a soft landing, another try around 150kt/13° AOA and hitting the ground quite hardly...

The 2000 is way easier to land... especially since the latest updates (where it finally land like it should). But the comparison has something correct, since the current F1 landing remind me landing with the first versions of the 2000... the aircraft feel "heavy".

I did not made rigorous testings, but I also find the aircraft hard to land. Either you touch the ground hard way, or you touch at high speed and have hard time to stop before the end of runway.

Projecting Mirage F1 aerodynamic behavior from the Tomcat is close to non-sens to me. They are hugely different aircraft, hugely different shape and design... Some will scream, but the Mirage F1 rather should be compared to F-16, an underpowerd, non-FBW, F-16.

For once, I found the radar performances pretty decent... the visual render may need a little love (the green appear a bit artifical, analogical display a little "too perfect", but these are details). I don't know the performances of the real Cyrano IV, but I think indeed you should not expect outstanding performances... It is able to lock a target at ~30 nm, IF you look up in the sky, if you look to the ground, this become harder. If you set the scanning mode to BPZ TEL (the little switch very well hidden on the left wall, "Telemeter/zone scanning switch" in controls) you should be able to lock (automatically) anything in visual range in front of you. (Why the hell enginers placed this switch at this odd place ?)

Are you ? I am open to ex pilots comments to tell me everything is OK with the current Flight Model.

Indeed, part of, but not only. I think there is also something to do with the flight model and software built-in input reponse curve. First to better simulate real stick IAS adaptive resistance (required physical strentgh to reach the stick extreme positions, to prevent pilot to do extreme manovers by mistakes), and also how horizontal stabilizers "stall", I think the current 'stall' point is exagerated and pessimistic, but this is not the subject of this thread.

This depend what you are talking about... Since the first release of this mod, many things changed in the Mirage 2000 inside cockpit sounds. They added cockpit systems noises, so now the engine sound is simply a little music in background, this is a little more realistic indeed. For the inside cockpit sound, my mod currently only add this little engine sound (which is completly lost in the vanilla version), and modified engine start/shutdown which better fit. For the outside sound, you should hear noticable difference, except for AI aircraft whose sound are completly f***ed up... I don't know why, but AI Mirage 2000 sound is completly broken, and there is nothing one can do except RAZBAM.

To have developed some physics engine and rudimentary flight model as hoby some years ago, my feeling about the current Mirage F1 flight model is that is typical of a little too simplistic "shape" modelisation based in well simulated physics dynamics. Theses oscilations around center of mass remide me a kind of "too perfect" model with very raw inputs... too perfect mean: not enough complex. But again, this is a feeling, I don't know the DCS engine and my experience still non-professional.

Here is statement, found in french forum, from who appear to be a former Mirage F1 pilot... Unfortunately it is a very generalist statement, no specific mention of adverse yaw. https://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=1898881#p1898881 This statement is strangely close to what one could hear about the Mirage 2000 (very stable in yaw, high roll rate) despite the wings design difference and the absence of FBW for the Mirage F1. Could it be a "Dassault touch" ? TL;DR