EvilKipper

It is possible to work around this. If you want to dynamically spawn a farp, you can pre create any number of empty farp pads somewhere on the map in the mission editor with their warehouses empty. Then when you know where you want your dynamic farp to be, you spawn the farp pad with the same name as one of your "template" farp pads. This will effectively move that airbase to wherever you want. You can do this multiple times with the same farp pad. If you are calling world.getAirbases, be sure to check isExist, the previous locations will be returned from world.getAirbases but isExist will be false. Airbase.getByName will always return the most recent one however. Once you have created your "dynamic" farp you can get it's warehouse and use it normally just like any other airbase.

Event: 1v1 Squadron Name: REAPERS vFS Teamspeak/Discord: EvilKipper#6211 Contact person: REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Aircraft Selection. Mirage 2000C Pilots: USA - REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Event: 2v2 Squadron Name: REAPERS vFS Teamspeak/Discord: EvilKipper#6211 Contact person: REAPER 32 | EvilKipper Aircraft Selection. 2x Mirage 2000C Pilots: UK - REAPER 33 | Sting and USA- REAPER 32 | EvilKipper

How about a DD on the lake by Tblisi :lol:

Just from first principals, at mach 2.2, lowering the slats should result in any number of very bad outcomes. 1. Departure of the airplane from controlled flight 2. Failure of structure of the wing 3. Failure of the structure of the slats I obviously don't know what would actually happen. Maybe it's never even been done. Maybe the FCS won't let you do it even with the switch. But at that speed, if you flip the switch, and they actually fully extend, I very much doubt nothing happens. My suspicion is that probably whatever actuates them isn't strong enough to force them out at that speed. If that's true, then the animation is wrong. Still as it now I can force them out at 200 kts and then accelerate to mach 2.2. That is wrong, there should be more drag when they are out. I think the flight model, and the animation are just completely disconnected.

Ah, ok, I didn't know that. The behavior changed from the previous FM, I'm glad to see it accurately simulated.

You may be correct, though I want to point out that the mirage actually has very low wing loading for a high performance jet. At MTOW it's wing loading is 85 lb/ft2, vs the original 737's 117 lb/ft2, but you were not testing at MTOW, in fact there is no valid loadout in DCS that reaches MTOW as far as I know. At loaded, which is basically the CAP loadout it's only 68 lb/ft2, but you weren't testing at that loadout either, at the weight you tested the wing loading is only 51 lb/ft2. That's WWII prop fighter territory (109G-6 is 40 lb/ft2). Also you're simple delta equation probably didn't consider the leading edge slats. I wish we actually had the data, because I hate to speculate, but since we are speculating, I'll put on the other side of the scale that it's a really huge wing (actually just under HALF the area of the original 737), and aerodynamically it's a very clean shape. Maybe it actually is a pretty good glider. Maybe the numbers are plausible.

Visually the slats move when manually actuated, but flight characteristics don't change at all. E.G. I can fully extend the slats at mach 2.2 and nothing bad happens.

Referring to the Fly by wire gain mode switch, right under the cannon switch. Once you change the mode by switching it to down, you can never change back to normal mode. You can flip the switch all you want, and the switch will move, but nothing will change.

You beat me to it, LOL

Can you describe concretely why it is wrong? What should it do? There are several reasons I think it might not be wrong. * The AoA is limited by the computer, meaning what you perceive is full deflection of the stick is actually changing as you move through the envelope. * The thrust to weight clean at %50 fuel is >1, and still quite high in the clean full fuel case. The first point is the most convincing. If the AoA was not limited, then of course you'd expect to depart eventually, given sufficient control authority. However with limited AoA, why wouldn't the forces balance out, and moreover, since the AoA limit is naturally below the AoA at which the aircraft would depart, then the speed where all the forces come into balance should naturally be above the stall speed, otherwise the AoA would be higher than the limit, and the computer would force you to turn more slowly by invisibly reducing the control surface deflection in spite of your fully deflected stick. I'd like the thank Razbam for their hard work on this new FM, which I am enjoying immensely. Now I can do all the airshow maneuvers I've seen mirages do!

Thanks! The mirage is my favorite plane in DCS, and I'm so happy the FM is being improved! Thanks for the hard work! Christmas is coming early!

My gut feeling is that we are not going to find anything very surprising about the mirage's engine. It's designed to be simple, reliable, and easy to maintain first, fuel efficiency and performance seem to have been lesser goals. It's quite amazing to me that Dassalt was able to build such a great fighter with such an unimpressive engine. I suspect it works basically the same as every other supersonic jet. I guess maybe due to its initially low compression ratio of 9.8:1, vs 30:1 on comparable engines, maybe it gains more efficiency from ram compression at high speeds than other engines, but I'd still expect more fuel flow at a higher Mach number (at a constant altitude).

Do you actually have a source for the data on fuel consumption at different speeds and altitudes? I found the below site, but I'm not sure how reliable it is, and it doesn't have data for different speeds at the same altitude. http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

At 40k fuel flow is about 132 on full burner, regardless of speed That just seems odd, even if the engine control system is able to restrict airflow, or reduce fuel flow without risking a flame out. I'd expect some change in fuel flow at a constant altitude at m 0.8 vs m 2.2. I'd be quite surprised to learn that the actual plane exhibits no change at all in fuel flow between these vastly different speeds. If it's just not implemented yet, fine, it's early access, but if that's so here is my vote that it gets implemented properly in the final product!

Hi, question about the mirage. Normally at a given altitude, fuel flow will increase as mach number increases. If you think about it this makes perfect sense, the engine has to burn more fuel in order to keep the optimal air fuel mixture as more air is entering the engine. In the F-15C for example this effect is quite large. I notice that this never happens in the mirage, is it just not modeled yet, or does the real plane actually behave this way? I can imagine several ways this might happen, e.g. the intake ramps might restrict airflow, or additional air might be forced to bypass the hot section. By the way, love the mirage, it's my favorite plane in DCS by far, thanks for all the hard work.