DCS Mirage 2000C Discussion

[Zebra288]

True, however, empty weight is no pilot, no weapons/ammunition/external stores etc

 

 

Not saying its massively over powered, just slightly looking at the take off roll, the aforementioned climb rate (he had enough fuel left for some supersonic runs afterwards)

[TomCatMucDe]

I just watched the times on the video. The real life one only took 2 seconds longer, not 4. It is also carrying two additional missiles, so it is not the exact same setup. Besides, time to take off will depend on the weather.

 

you are right about the 2 extra missiles. I didnt see them.

 

However, they are well 4 seconds difference.

[Gliptal]

Since you're collecting feedback, are you up d'or some regarding the HUD? I know of a guy on Reddit that has some hard data (like formulas and such) by backed up sources,who never managed to provide it.

[VincentLaw]

Making an EFM is not quite that simple, as thrust varies a lot depending on a many factors, such as atmospheric pressure, aircraft speed, altitude etc...

Yes, of course many factors come into play. The WIP EFM might have too much thrust. I'm just pointing out that watching the video alone isn't really enough to be certain.

 

However, they are well 4 seconds difference.

You are right. My mistake.

[escaner]

But the position of the pipper on the snake... I thought that represents the radar range as well (and not only the ring of the pipper) so that you would not have to guesstimate the right position by comparing the wing span size to the cross bars?

 

Yes, it seems to mark both the pipper for the range on the snake and an unwinding circular range indicator.

 

I have been watching some M2000 HUD footage and certainly this seems the actual behaviour. I am a bit shocked tho, I really expected a point of impact prediction in a fighter from the 80s.

[jojo]

It's not outdated feature. Typhoon and Rafale use the same snake and piper...

[TomCatMucDe]

It's not outdated feature. Typhoon and Rafale use the same snake and piper...

 

wouldn't it be more ergnomic to have it in a fix place and have the calculated impact point on the snake like the funnel in the F16. It seems indeed a strange choice.

[howie87]

Don't suppose this is coming out with an English cockpit?

[PiedDroit]

I am a bit shocked tho, I really expected a point of impact prediction in a fighter from the 80s.

Actually the prediction will yield worse results.

Using the snake (or the funnel), you have a very accurate representation of where your shells would have gone if fired continuously, so you can use this to time your shots so they land at the correct distance.

The snake itself isn't meant to be put exactly on the target, as if you're not in the plane of maneuver the shots will go off.

It's intended to give you a cue, for example if you're in a left roll with your target, you'll probably want to put your target a little right of the snake.

 

Problem with prediction sight is that they're very sensitive, as any tiny movement of the aircraft will make your piper jump all around.

Also a bad velocity vector estimation will lead to bad prediction.

An aircraft radar return is not a focused point in space you can use to make super precise calculations. The angle between two radar blobs might not represent the real angle of your target, and any computation based on very short interval will increase the error.

 

To me the range input as is done makes a lot of sense.

 

EDIT:

Here's an extract I could find online - it's from a game manual, so, not to be taken too seriously, but it ahs some of the points I'm trying to expose:

 

Gunsights have come a long way over the years. They've advanced from a circle and crosshairs mounted in front of the wind screen, to complex, computer-driven devices that make all sorts of calculations for the pilot. The “historical” or realtime sight is the most accurate type of sight yet developed. This type of sight displays where the cannon shells would impact if they were fired roughly two seconds ago. I'm often asked why the sight doesn't show where the shells will be two seconds FROM NOW. Well, this type of “predicting” sight was developed and used, but it requires a great deal of predicting. If both the target and the shooter are maneuvering wildly, this predicting becomes very questionable. The historical gunsight allows for all kinds of maneuvering since it uses known, not predicted information. The computer knows where you and the target were two seconds ago and can show an extremely accurate picture of where shells fired then would have hit.

Using this type of sight does take a little getting used to. You must base your aim on where the aiming pipper will be in two seconds or so. This will be shorter if you're very close to the target. Rather than looking at where the pipper is, you need to concentrate on which direction it's moving relative to the target. You need to time your shot so the pipper will reach the target in two seconds or so.

This sounds difficult in concept, but it's much easier to learn than it is to explain. Pilots prefer this type of sight to all others because it gives them very accurate information. With good information, they know they can aim the system properly. With a little practice, I'm sure you'll be able to master the system. Once you do, watch out MiGs!

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f19stealthfighter/05_3_Gun_Attacks.php

 

There's also some info in Shaw's book but I don't have the time to dig through it right now :D

Edited November 12, 2015 by PiedDroit

[TomCatMucDe]

You are absolutely correct. I've been working with our tester over the past week on this particular issue, so it is definitely on the radar to get worked on.

 

:thumbup: good luck!

[TomCatMucDe]

You are absolutely correct. I've been working with our tester over the past week on this particular issue, so it is definitely on the radar to get worked on.

 

By the way, how come you arent listed as third party developper?

[PiedDroit]

Don't know if this was asked before, but if you shoot a radar missile followed by an IR missile, will the control system automatically balance the load by shooting from the other wing?

I'm asking this because pretty much every plane in DCS is always shooting in the same order so if you don't shoot pairs you can end up with a fully loaded wing and a a clean wing on the other side.

Thanks!

[TomCatMucDe]

Don't know if this was asked before, but if you shoot a radar missile followed by an IR missile, will the control system automatically balance the load by shooting from the other wing?

I'm asking this because pretty much every plane in DCS is always shooting in the same order so if you don't shoot pairs you can end up with a fully loaded wing and a a clean wing on the other side.

Thanks!

 

Thats true. It is the same with the A10C with Mavericks for example. it is annoying to have to do it manually every time. Is it like this in real?

[PiedDroit]

Thats true. It is the same with the A10C with Mavericks for example. it is annoying to have to do it manually every time. Is it like this in real?

Actually it makes sense for the maverick, to benefit from the quick draw capability (next missile on the pylon will be slewed on previous target automatically). otherwise yes if you switch weapon it's always the same side that shoots first and that's annoying, it mean you always need to choose your pylon manually.

A least in the A10 you can choose the pylons..

[TomCatMucDe]

Actually it makes sense for the maverick, to benefit from the quick draw capability (next missile on the pylon will be slewed on previous target automatically). otherwise yes if you switch weapon it's always the same side that shoots first and that's annoying, it mean you always need to choose your pylon manually.

A least in the A10 you can choose the pylons..

 

that isn't the case in the DCS implementation, the next maverick is not slewed to the SPI. You have to do it yourself every time.

[Antoha]

Будет ли улучшена модель стоек шасси ? А то выглядят как то не реально, что ощутимо портит внешний вид.:no_sad:

Will improved model of landing gear? And it looks like that is not really that significantly spoils the appearance.Translated by Google

Edited November 12, 2015 by Antoha

[escaner]

Actually the prediction will yield worse results.

Using the snake (or the funnel), you have a very accurate representation of where your shells would have gone if fired continuously, so you can use this to time your shots so they land at the correct distance.

The snake itself isn't meant to be put exactly on the target, as if you're not in the plane of maneuver the shots will go off.

It's intended to give you a cue, for example if you're in a left roll with your target, you'll probably want to put your target a little right of the snake.

 

Problem with prediction sight is that they're very sensitive, as any tiny movement of the aircraft will make your piper jump all around.

Also a bad velocity vector estimation will lead to bad prediction.

An aircraft radar return is not a focused point in space you can use to make super precise calculations. The angle between two radar blobs might not represent the real angle of your target, and any computation based on very short interval will increase the error.

 

To me the range input as is done makes a lot of sense.

 

EDIT:

Here's an extract I could find online - it's from a game manual, so, not to be taken too seriously, but it ahs some of the points I'm trying to expose:

 

Gunsights have come a long way over the years. They've advanced from a circle and crosshairs mounted in front of the wind screen, to complex, computer-driven devices that make all sorts of calculations for the pilot. The “historical” or realtime sight is the most accurate type of sight yet developed. This type of sight displays where the cannon shells would impact if they were fired roughly two seconds ago. I'm often asked why the sight doesn't show where the shells will be two seconds FROM NOW. Well, this type of “predicting” sight was developed and used, but it requires a great deal of predicting. If both the target and the shooter are maneuvering wildly, this predicting becomes very questionable. The historical gunsight allows for all kinds of maneuvering since it uses known, not predicted information. The computer knows where you and the target were two seconds ago and can show an extremely accurate picture of where shells fired then would have hit.

Using this type of sight does take a little getting used to. You must base your aim on where the aiming pipper will be in two seconds or so. This will be shorter if you're very close to the target. Rather than looking at where the pipper is, you need to concentrate on which direction it's moving relative to the target. You need to time your shot so the pipper will reach the target in two seconds or so.

This sounds difficult in concept, but it's much easier to learn than it is to explain. Pilots prefer this type of sight to all others because it gives them very accurate information. With good information, they know they can aim the system properly. With a little practice, I'm sure you'll be able to master the system. Once you do, watch out MiGs!

http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f19stealthfighter/05_3_Gun_Attacks.php

 

There's also some info in Shaw's book but I don't have the time to dig through it right now :D

 

Nice, Microprose F-19 manual, that was my first flight sim in PC hehe.

 

For aiming I prefer info about the target to info about my manouvering. I have always been more accurate with fixed sights than with funnels, snakes or that P-51 sight which is basically the same, and find them totally useless for snapshots. Will check Robert Shaw's book, have it at home.

[Antoha]

Хотелось бы еще посмотреть скриншоты как реализована модель повреждений?:smilewink:

I would like to see the screenshots of how to implement the model of damages?:smilewink:

[VincentLaw]

For aiming I prefer info about the target to info about my manouvering.

I agree with this. With modern signals processing a predictive sight should accurate, but it seems like the Mirage 2000C has limited computational power so it may not have been a matter of preference. It is less difficult from the computational standpoint to place the pipper on the snake, since the snake is already calculated it becomes a 2 dimensional interpolation problem, so it makes sense for the 2000C.

Edited November 12, 2015 by VincentLaw

[PiedDroit]

I agree with this. With modern signals processing a predictive sight should accurate, but it seems like the Mirage 2000C has limited computational power so it may not have been a matter of preference. It is less difficult from the computational standpoint to place the pipper on the snake, since the snake is already calculated it becomes a 2 dimensional interpolation problem, so it makes sense for the 2000C.

What aircraft is displaying data about the target ?

I'm curious to see what it looks like (a vector drawn from the target in HUD?). I'm quite sceptical about the usefulness of it but if you're better with it why not, I'm interested to know which aircraft implement it.

Also if you don't like the snake the gun cross is always there so you can still use it as a fixed sight.

[CallsignFrosty]

By the way, how come you arent listed as third party developper?

 

non sense and out of topic :smartass:

[VincentLaw]

What aircraft is displaying data about the target ?

I'm curious to see what it looks like (a vector drawn from the target in HUD?).

I don't know to what extent planes do that, but it doesn't need to draw a vector on the target. Just move the pipper based on target maneuvering. In any case, the 2000C uses a historic impact point instead of a predicted impact point. A predicted impact point for the pipper would allow the pilot to fire more easily since the information is not delayed.

 

Also if you don't like the snake the gun cross is always there so you can still use it as a fixed sight.

I actually do like the snake. The snake looks much less cluttered than the funnel, and you are right, the gun cross is there if the pilot needs to use it. I always use the fixed AND gyro mode in the P-51, which allows me to imagine my own snake in my head.
Edited November 12, 2015 by VincentLaw

[TomCatMucDe]

I don't know to what extent planes do that, but it doesn't need to draw a vector on the target. Just move the pipper based on target maneuvering. In any case, the 2000C uses a historic impact point instead of a predicted impact point. A predicted impact point for the pipper would allow the pilot to fire more easily since the information is not delayed.

 

I actually do like the snake. The snake looks much less cluttered than the funnel, and you are right, the gun cross is there if the pilot needs to use it.

 

from all gunsights i have tried i find the russian one is the best and easiest to use, namely on the Su27. It is small but so easy to place on the target and it s extremely deadly. hard to miss with it.

[Azrayen]

Хотелось бы еще посмотреть скриншоты как реализована модель повреждений?:smilewink:

I would like to see the screenshots of how to implement the model of damages?:smilewink:

 

This was following a mid-air collision. The second aircraft crashed (pilot safe).

 

On an interesting note, the cause of the crash is insufficient thrust on the second aircraft (nose damaged): it was not a mechanical failure, but due to the fact that the "emergency mode" of the engine had been engaged (this mode is engaged by flipping the "Secours Carburant" plate, next to the throttle; in this case, it's the impact between the 2 aircraft itself that flipped the plate).

 

So, if Razbam modelizes this plate, take care ;)

Edited November 13, 2015 by Azrayen

[Flamin_Squirrel]

How funny on a forum where many French people lurk. :doh:

Signed: A cheese-eater. :music_whistling:

 

= = = = = = =

 

Anyway, this was following a mid-air collision. The second aircraft crashed (pilot safe).

On an interesting note, the cause of the crash is insufficient thrust on the second aircraft (nose damaged): it was not a mechanical failure, but due to the fact that the "emergency mode" of the engine had been engaged (this mode is engaged by flipping the "Secours Carburant" plate, next to the throttle; in this case, it's the impact between the 2 aircraft itself that flipped the plate).

 

So, if Razbam modelizes this plate, take care ;)

 

What's the functionality of the plate?