sedenion

Canopy and hud glass, are a general issue of current 2.1 due to deferred shading engine that interpret transparent material totally differently than the previous standard engine... I think ED have to advise module makers how to parameter their material to: - Add some opacity to attenuate external light - Manage reflexion effect with alpha properly without creating border effets with standard engine.

Not the white mask... The white mask is particular to Mirage due to small alpha value defined to the hud fov mask... However, this is very simple to fix in Lua files.

<irony mode>What a wonderful spy tool for marketing and big-data monsters to verify how, when and how many you watch the advertising on websites...</irony mode>

This mod only affect the visual part of the VTB... nothing about Radar or IFF behavior.

The Magic II launch procedures are not up to date... There is no more "tone" when seeking, and we now need (not absolutely, but this is better) to ativate the "Magic Slave" command to lock from radar to magic.

Which is not an argument since we don't know the ED's API, how Razbam used it and how much. If Razbam can't tell because something is in the ED side, so he said "Sorry, i don't know, this is on the ED side"...

Maybe ! But, could we have some confirmation from developers ? I think communication about current radar implementation, programmed rules about ground clutter, atmosphere, closing speed, etc, could definitely dismiss some doubts and sterile debates and help everybody to clearly state and recognize "Yes, it is regular, it is feature, it is coded as this". I don't think my request is groundless considering the amount of debates about radar lock loss.

Maybe, but i like to speak about facts, not about "theorically implemented as IRL"... If a dev tell me: "Here are the test that are made, here is how the radar is coded to lose lock", it is ok for me. But i want to know, because as developper too, i perfectly know that a real radar and a simulation algorithm are two things totaly differents. The first is interacting in a incommensurably complex world made of molecules, waves, etc... the second is just some sucession of "if then", where "chaos" and "hasard" do not exist, except if they are voluntarly implemented as this.

For this kind of argument, i really would love developper's comments, like "Ho yes, this is codded as this in the module, when the target speed is near or equal own speed, the lock is lost"... I heard so many theories here about how and why this is normal that the radar "lose the lock because <insert here some reason that explain why you are wrong and why this is so realistic>", than i really want to view the radar code to ensure myselft that people are not simply fantasming the "realism" from some unknown bugs.

Dear Jojo... be happy that i don't speak about your psychological states and biases... Piston85 asked something, i anwered, the FM problem is real and actual and is not currently fixed, even if CptSmiley confirmed he is working on... I will put the "FM problem" out of the list when it will be fixed. You too, be happy.

Personally, i am less regarding about the not-implemented feature, but many more about the general impression of "unfinished" and "buggy" status of the module currently: and be sure that is precisely what a new customer see immediately: THIS IS NOT FINISHED. And because, this is almost what happened with this module: during 2 years people asking for "new feature" while the current implemented ones was not even properly finished. In this place, some years ago, you could had find many people asking urgently for buddy laser targeting or refueling features, while many vital things was totally buggy or even not implemented at all... Clearly, after almost 2 years reading people here, i am very tired of people that always ask for new feature while the HUD just look horrible or while the radar is not even able to keep a target locked correctly... and i want to say amically, for all people like me (and i know i am not alone, even if a am the most noisy) : Let the developpers finish the current features, manual, gameplay, and esthetical parts as they should be... and after, we will see if we realy need a "terrain avoidance mode" to fullfill the "super hardcore" avionic modelisation...

I was not aware of that... so, clearly, there is no more reason for complacency indulgence... (and i even don't say that as a "disappointed customer", but from a more general and common sense point of view). Razbam must ASAP: - Finish the manual - Take some time to review the commands name and sorting - Fix the Flight Model - Review and be clear about the radar behavior - Finish/Fix the HUD and VTB symbology - Better figure out what is a "Finished Work". EDIT: The M2k module is not a bad module, but currently, this is a not finished module, and there is no relativism to have with that, because this is obvious. Razbam should take 1-2 month full-time to totally review and finish the M2k, assuming that some small or secondary bug can remain and be fixed in more large time window.

As i said, unfortunately, there is no decent "Manual" actually comming with the M2k, except the non-official "LeChuck" which is no more available for download... This simple fact is sufficient to minimize the "RTFM" argument. You can add, with this fact, another fact: The (Key/Joystick) commands names are obscure and their sorting is pretty freaky, making theme hard to figure where to find what to do what. After all what i read in this thread, i think the community (and Razbam) should face to some facts. For who just buy the M2k module and test for the first time, there is a good chance that the "average player" have a bad surprise, for some good reasons, and for some "less good" reasons. - The famous "F* Manual" is simply not finished at all, almost useless and can barely help you except for navigation or engine start. - The Controls commands are NOT sorted nor nammed in a "easy to find / easy to guess" way, and: They are not or bad documented. - The HUD symbology is not finished, with lot of bad aligment, gross sprites (AOA), mipmap problems, and dirty aproximation (seriousely, did you see the missile DLZ ?) - The VTB : same as HUD but less dramatical - The Flight Model transforms the M2k to a flying brick, so the M2k is not fun to fly anymore since it is a Mirage III. - The radar still have strange "lock loss", which you can imputs as you prefer to a "bug" or a "super realistic behavior", depending the point of view. All that, after 2 years of people asking detailed implementation of INS, Air-Ground capabilities, pure respect to claimed "turn rate" and "mach number at given altitude), etc... 2 years of hard developpment to make happy a small part of the community with some very specifical aspects of the Mirage 2000 (sorry, this is what i think)... while the most obvious was simply "left as this". The fact is that when you buy the M2k, if you are coherent with yourself, you buy it because this is a Air-Air fighter interceptor, not a bomber, nor an pleasance tourist aircraft... So you did not begins to adjust manually your INS, and you don't begins with CCRP bombing... if i make a "M2k Review", you wil propbably hate me, but this would be only factual... some factual that some people don't want to see.. "Fortunately", the M2k still as "Open BETA"... and for how long ? ?

Fortunately, no... but France did'nt made a good action movie since... or

And unfortunately, the download link is broken... (i just tested)

It appear you were in POL (Police) mode... which can explain all what you speak about.

M2k is not formely hard (except if you realy want to manually record your flight plan using INS...) but it can be confusing in first approach... Like the Magic lock and interception circle (who is not what it appear to be), which is probably a typical mistake. But currently, the big problem about the "RTFM" approach, is precisely that, the current official manual need a huge update and enhancement, because currently, it is near useless since while you can find many "useless" informations (like power distribution shematics for exemple), many essential things are simply not mentionned.

It is well heard that delta wings produce more drag on turns than other configuration, this is well known. However, the delta wings of the Mirage III and the delta wings of the Mirage 2000 are not the same... and if you look closely, this is obvious. Think that the Rafale and EF-2000 are also delta wings...

The common error.... The Mirage 2000 is NOT a Mirage III/Kfir and is NOT comparable to Mirage III/Kfir despit its delta wing config... We have discussed this confusion many time before. Extrapolating M2k performances from the Mirage III/Kfir is somewhere like extrapolating the F-16 performances from F-4 phantom...

Not tryed but i don't think so...

No, this is where Magic seeker look at with default alignment (aircraft horizontal plan). You should use the "Magic Slave" command. -> Lock target with radar -> Hit "Magic Slave" => Magic seeker automatically look at the current radar target. The "Interception Circle" in M2k has no real meaning, this is most like "hey, you are in interception mode".

Thanks all for support :D So, i checked my code... there is no major issue with overlapping mods, so until i find a way to make the list order customisable (this would be a huge work), you can workaround simply by applying the mod individually (by double-clic instead of global selection) in the order you want it/them to be applied. Notice that this would not work for profiles. Another trick could be to rename mods folders with numbers at the beginning of the name, would be easy for folders, but problematic for zip ones.

To be reassuring, i just checked my code, and currently, no backup corruption can occur. The original (first) backup file is kept as reference for restore. You only may encounter some restore error message, but nothing serious.

The fact is that this should be avoided the most as possible. Currently OVGME is not really designed to handle this situation smartly, it only warns you that this may cause backup corruption. I will make some thinking about this issue... then, may be, thinking about a way to order the list in custom way (this is way more complex)

I guess this is to apply some mods that conflicts/overlaps with each other... right ?