HWasp

Thanks again for the detailed answers. I really like the module, even though I did not fly it a lot nowadays, the constant stream of updates, fixing the low speed behaviour, are really great things, overall I consider it great quality. Please don't get me wrong for continuing to press this possible issue here, even though the very detailed answers, looking the HUD tape video in more detail and testing it against DCS raised further questions for me. 1. I see you are treating the chevrons signaling speed change as a perfect indicator, but is that really perfect enough to deduct STR using it when the pilot just pulls through the range? Here is what I mean: just before 2:15 (the screen posted by myHelljumper) there is another instance of the chevrons crossing the FPM, but with a much lower G value. There at 2:13 vertical speed is also very low, chevrons are almost on the FPM but G load is only 4,8G (399 kts) Please see screenshots attached. For me it seems, that when the pilot is pulling through the STR range dynamically, the chevrons might not be accurate enough to indicate the PS0 moment during the maneuver:

Understood, thanks.

Airshow demos are not really standard ops, afaik demo flights are often started with less than maximum fuel for the obivious performance benefit, if safety permits. Unless one of your Mirage pilot contacts says for 100% they would never ever do this for a certain reason, I think the possibility should be considered. I did play around flying roughly similiar profiles to the video, with lots of AB and, I think it would be possible to fly this demo starting around 2500 kg and finish with 500+ kg. I would consider that safe.

Thanks for the answer! I still have a problem with this part, because you are using a single parameter to check 2 other. We should know either the fuel state or the temperature to make a 100% assumption. I have just made a take-off in DCS with temperature set to 30 Celsius and 80% fuel. Jx is exactly 0.68. If this display is during summer, then this is still a possible combination. M2000_30Celsius_Jx068_1122.trk

Thanks for showing this important data point. I think it would be important to discuss about fuel state in a bit more detail, because it has a very large impact on this subject. For me it seems like, that the current FM STR at 400 kts is accurate to the video if fuel is assumed to be 100% on take-off. (in that case at 2:15 with constant full afterburner we are at around 77% fuel and STR is around 6,8 G). So again to be clear, the FM is only accurate regarding this data point, if we assume, that the demo flight starts with 100% fuel in the video. I tested the 400 kts STR with different fuel loads, and the difference is of course quite huge. (I used your chart to show the data, I hope, that is no problem) - at 100% fuel sustained G is 6,5 - at 75% fuel sustained G is 6,9 (in DCS for me take-off + low speed aerobatics with constant full AB for 02:15 takes me to 77% fuel ) - at 50% fuel sustained G is 7,5 - at 25% fuel sustained G is 8,3 According to Mirage pilots, what is the usual take-off fuel for a standard 10 minutes airshow display? Are they using 100%? Please see the chart attached, STR at the previously mentioned fuel loads marked. Tracks for the STR at 400 at the mentioned fuel levels. (the 25% fuel test is a bit crappy because I did not disable G effects, so was blacking out constantly) M2000STR400kts100_1122.trk M2000STR400kts25_1122.trk M2000STR400kts75_1122.trk M2000STR400kts50_1122.trk

Well, for STR it does match the chart. Otherwise I suspect, that anomalies like that are there because some modules overperform a bit, like the F18 for example... Anyway, the MiG-29 charts are available publicly, and if the M2000 has superior max STR, there is a small problem, I think.

Made some quick tests for max. STR M2000 vs F-16 vs MiG-29 (clean, 25% fuel) For me max STR (standard dcs 20C SL almost) (infobar readings) - M2000 : 9,2G / 450 Kts ---> 22,2 DPS - F-16 : 9,2G / 470 Kts ---> 21,2 DPS (I think that is exactly as per HAF manual 22k lbs) - MiG-29A : approx 9G / 460 Kts ---> 21,2 DPS (this is really the least accurate test, that thing is more difficult to fly, but matches MiG-29 chart ) While these are hand flown tests, I think they are accurate enough to establish that currently M2000 has the highest maximum STR among these 3 modules. M2000STR_1122.trk F_16STR_1122.trk MiG29STR_1122.trk

https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/mig-29-versus-mirage-2000-personal-account-from-by-air-marshal-harish-masand/ I have never ever heard any sources claim, that the Mirage 2000 is a superior rate fighter compared to the MiG-29 and F-16. A long time ago the airforce of my country was considering to purchase the Mirage 2000, and one of the negative aspects claimed was inferior sustained turn rate compared to the MiG-29 and F-16. Both F-16 and MiG-29 have a good amount of data publicly available and they both seem to be modeled accurately in DCS currently, so I would consider them a good point of reference. Obviously exact values cannot be determined by comparisons like this, but it is an important reality check, especially if there is no public data to refer to. Doing just a quick test to see what is going on, the M2000 seems to beat the F-16 (clean 25%fuel) regarding STR ------------------------------ So just to establish basic common grounds for this: - According to SMEs and public sources available, is the Mirage 2000C a superior 2 circle (rate) fighter against the MiG-29 and F-16C ? Yes/No (Please link source)

TW is the last thing an F-5 pilot should trust Sure, it could work as long as entry speed is high and the F-5 is careful not to bleed it off.

MiG-19 is a beast compared to the F-5, it has much better thrust to weight ratio. Also if the MiG-15 pilot stalls out trying to follow you into the vertical, that is entirely his mistake. As long as the F-5 keeps high speed, it can try anything to see if the 15 pilot makes a mistake.

To keep it simple and to the point: In a 1v1 merge there is no way to get on the six of a decent and aware MiG-15 with an F-5. There is no magic counter, regardless of speed, direction of the turns nothing will work, unless the 15 pilot looses sight or does something very dumb. You'll need to use your speed to either disengage or reset the fight if you have P-5s (it might be difficult to get a tone head-on though) The simple rule is: never ever slow down, even if it is behind you taking shots. Just jink, try get some speed as quickly as possible. In any 2v2 or many vs many, I'll just keep high speed and pretty much ignore the MiG-15 on my tail and try to get a shot on one of the other 15s that are occupied with my wingman or other friendlies.

First of all, I don't want to claim, that the currents changes are perfect, and no further tuning is needed, BUT it is very positive, that problems are being acknowledged and changes are made. I'm sure it will be improved further. That being said, your post is a complete exaggeration. Smooth control inputs are needed now, that is all. Claiming, that is is ruined now, and can't hit anything is just simply bullsh.t... Excuse my sh.tty flying skills, but what is so difficult about making barrel rolls around an airliner now with the current FM?? Even I can do it (sort of). MiG_19IL_762.trk

Well, it is certainly more realistic, than it was before, you like it or not. I'm sure it can be improved, tuned further over time. For me the important thing here is, that the previous pitch behaviour is gone. Just because something is "9 ton" doesn't make it magically stable. There is a thing called inertia, so if you introduce a high pitch rate with a sudden stick movement, it won't just stop because you stopped the stick, it will overshoot...

Thank you for the FM improvements last patch! I have just tried it, and I think it is great, feels much more realistic. Very nice to see, that problems are being adressed, looking forward to the MiG-23 and F-15!

Just to be perfectly clear, this is regarding the subject of the topic only, not a general comparison. I am not claiming, that those 2 module's FMs are superior overall, this is just an opinion about this particular aspect of the fm. Also, again, to be very clear, this topic is NOT about it being difficult to fly or not, it is about the specific subject of dynamic stability, how the aircraft behaves after an abrupt control input compared to some other modules. (Are the F-86 or MiG-15 difficult to fly in DCS? No, not at all.) BTW, a lot of these 10 hour Spitfire pilots died during training, so it might not be the best example. Although, of course it was not the "flying" but the take-off and landing, that got them mostly...

Hey, thanks for the condescending reply, great way to start the usual sh.tshow To be honest, the only jet I ever flew was the 737 (400 and 800) irl, and obviously my experience of the extremes is from the full flight simulator, so I'm not a 19 expert of course, but let me tell you, that the 737 being a f.... airliner is much more sensitive in pitch at high mach high altitude, and it is much more prone for oscillations in the low speed high aoa region (obviously I don't know what she does at 550 kts on the deck...). I am looking for a constructive debate, I don't claim that I know how the real MiG-19P flies, so let's try and keep this civil. I am comparing the MiG-19 module to the ED MiG-15 and F-86. For me those 2 behave much more natural and believable while also being completely stable and controllable. Do you have either of those modules for comparison?

With ARU-2V set to manual mode and to maximum control deflection / stick input ratio (low speed mode), still around 40% of the max pitch input is needed to achieve 8 Gs over 1000 km/h. I'm not claiming that this is wrong, but I certainly find it strange, that the aircraft is still this easy to control in this config. If the real aircraft was this tame and easy to fly in this configuration, it raises the question for me, why they implemented the ARU-2V at all? MiG_19ARU_Man.trk

Sorry, but what are you talking about? I have made a comparison to the MiG-15 and F-86. Where did you see modern FBW aircraft with relaxed stability mentioned here? Excessive stability due to very far forward CG has a large performance penalty IRL, I'd be interested, what is the normal CG range for the 19P compared to 2 other modules mentioned. Other than this, it is also interesting for me, that I am having better results flying and fighting in the 19 module with ARU-2V set to manual with maximum control deflections to stick input ratio (low speed mode) even at high speeds. MiG-21s did suffer accidents due to pilot induced oscillations when their ARU-3V failed. This makes me wonder why the system is even installed in the MiG-19, if it is perfectly controllable without it even at highs speeds. (For me the MiG-19 is less sensitive in pitch with the ARU set to maximum control deflection to stick input ratio manually, than many other modules in normal config at high speeds) ((no curves!))

Alternatively there could be a second (virtual) dial to set the gauge at much higher rate.

You simply need to buy either pedals for your warthog or get a stick with a twist axis. It's a primary flight control, it is not optional. You should post a track, that shows, what you think is incorrect behaviour. For me pitch control is fine with a crappy old X-52, no curves.

I checked what happens during a roll with time slowed down to 1/4, there are certainly rudder movements commanded by the yaw damper, so it is trying to do it's thing, but seems to have limited authority. For me, at low AoA, as long as I use less than half aileron (already 90deg/sec+ I think), slideslip is not a big issue. It really is quite different to the others, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just because of that. Switched off the damper, and there is a difference for sure, so the system is doing it's thing.

Everybody noticed? I fly it with a simple joystick, no extensions, no curves, no problem... Don't come up with claims like that, it is not uncontrollable in any way. I don't have a real rudder as well, only a twist axis on the stick. That is a real control axis though. If you are using some non-standard workarounds to control rudder axis, then you should not blame the module for being difficult to control. It's a basic aircraft control, it needs a proper control axis.

You need to use the rudder when you make a roll input and keep the ball centered (the slideslip indicator on the bottom of the main artificial horizon) At higher AoA more rudder is needed! At very high AoA use the rudder only if you want to roll.

I think a big red "WTF??" is a bit too much. Nothing wrong with constructive criticism, but I don't really see this thread as constructive, since it is not pointing out hidden bugs and issues, but some (I think) obvious wip. things, that are really not that important, since we are talking about a simulator product. I think, the devs produced a very high quality module (FM, systems), so they deserve a bit more respect.

I couldn't care less about a couple of low res textures here and there, and things like the pilot model. Functionality is excellent, it feels like a complete module already. Limitations are modeled, which is really, really nice, the plane cannot be abused in unrealistic ways. I think, the devs had their priorities right, and this is maybe the best EA release I've seen for DCS. I'm sure these small issues will be adressed later.