M-2000C for DCS World by RAZBAM - Available for Pre-Purchase

[frantzleb0ucher]

why not make the mirage 2000D

[FlyingHighAU]

Well accurate or not, I really hope the ARMAT missile makes it into this module in the long run :)

 

We only have one SEAD capable aircraft and it doesn't even have a clickable cockpit (Su-25T).

 

A supersonic SEAD capable aircraft would be worth buying even if you never do anything else in it:)

[NeilWillis]

why not make the mirage 2000D

 

You could ask that about every module that's made here. The choice was no doubt made for sound reasons, and therefore that is what we will be getting.

 

Maybe Zeus will give a little insight into this at some stage, but whether it is a C, a D, or whatever, you can guarantee it won't be what some people would like.

 

Quite often the choice may be down to what has sufficient documentation and unclassified data available, or which systems can be modelled most effectively.

 

It may of course also be down to the favourites of the developer.

[OnlyforDCS]

Hey why not make a space shuttle? :smilewink:

[NeilWillis]

No guns.

[Vampyre]

No guns.

 

And nothing to orbit around.

[Azrayen]

:lol:

 

Seriously though: the D is still up to date and heavily used by the french air force.

Combined with French military/Dassault tendency to be very secretive about detailled capabilities, implementation and the like, you would quickly find out that the scarcity of available data make it simply impossible to modelize a 2000D at the required level of fidelity for DCS.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Azrayen
typo. bloody smartphone!

[Jerkzilla]

No guns.

 

Clearly not true:

 

 

 

 

 

On topic, I'm glad Zeus cleared the situation about the Exocet up. Anti-ship was kind of a niche thing to do in DCS anyway, even compared to SEAD. Regardless, depending on my money situation, I hope to get this during the pre-order.

[QuiGon]

Unlike many American classic aircraft, there is a scarcity of information about the M-2000C. All we have is the french manual, which is very sparse more like a memory aid, and whatever else we can find in the internet.

 

Unfortunately the information in the internet tends to be a smorgasbord of versions mixed together. RMD, RDI, EB, EG, etc. so you get a lot of conflicting data about the capabilities and weapons it carries or not. Even the radar screens are based on YouTube videos which also mix RDM, RDI and RDY radars together.

 

So, when we made that statement that was our intended purpose; but, after we started actual development and after the deployment of the FSX version by M2M we started to receive more detailed information from people who had actually worked with the airplane and who pointed the erroneous facts in our information regarding the different versions. And thus we came to our first fork in the road: RDM or RDI. We choose RDI, because it has a better radar and air-to-air capabilities, at the expense of air-to-ground targeting. But even the RMD is not capable of using Air-to-Ground guided weapons and its radar is less capable than the RDI. So for the loss of the Exocet, and possibly the ARMAT, we went with a better package: the RDI.

 

So, our statement was factually correct when we made it, but during the development process we found out that our goal forced us to make some choices which changed our initial statement. Is it going to change any further? It is doubtful. The major features of the aircraft are already setup and we are working to bring them alive.

 

The only weapon being considered, but no decision taken, is the ARMAT. Only, because it seems that Egypt did use them on their M-2000C RDM variants. But that is still up in the air. We won't make a decision before open beta. There's plenty to do before we consider optional equipment like the ARMAT.

 

I would prefer if you don't include the ARMAT, since it's real usage is very doubtful. Only the egypts might have used them and then on the RDM variant, not our RDI variant. So it wouldn't make any sense to include it as hard as it sounds. I hoped it would have been different, since we really need more SEAD plattforms (especially supersonic) but it wouldn't fit the realism I expect from a DCS module. :(

[jaguara5]

+ 1 about a RDM / Exocet variant, even as a payware addon

[Zeus67]

Look folks, despite not having the EXOCET and the ARMAT (currently), the M-2000C has an excellent mix of air-to-ground weaponry that you can choose from:

 

* MK-82 x 6

* MK-82S x 6

* BLG-66 Belouga x 8

* GBU-10

* GBU-12 x 2

* GBU-16

* GBU-24

* BAP 100 x 18

* MATRA Rockets x 2

 

At this moment we have placeholders for the following weapons:

* MK-20 Rockeyes for the Belouga

* HYDRA rockets for the MATRA

 

The only one not implemented yet is the BAP 100

This is the BAP 100

 

 

And it is used to do this:

 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Zeus67

[OnlyforDCS]

Love that illustration! :)

 

There will always be naysayers and those who nitpick over every little thing. You will never be able to please everyone, so don't worry about it too much Zeus, for every naysayer on the forum you have 10 people who are absolutely ecstatic over the C version, if you make the plane YOU want to fly, Im pretty sure it's going to be an awesome module that everyone else will appreciate as well! :thumbup:

[didilman]

Thank you Zeus67 so finaly this M2000C have some awesome weapons!!

 

 

Its how U fly a 2000C.

[QuiGon]

Love that illustration! :)

 

There will always be naysayers and those who nitpick over every little thing. You will never be able to please everyone, so don't worry about it too much Zeus, for every naysayer on the forum you have 10 people who are absolutely ecstatic over the C version, if you make the plane YOU want to fly, Im pretty sure it's going to be an awesome module that everyone else will appreciate as well! :thumbup:

 

This! :thumbup:

[element1108]

Congrats Razbam, had no idea you guys were so close. This is a DAY ONE purchase for me (at full price).

 

Very much looking forward to flying this baby over Nevada.

[Neon67]

thanks for the info Zeus

I prefer having something realisticly accurate honestly, and if later your team want to do an upgraded version of the m2000 or dual seater , I will definitly buy it and probably other people too

[Moos_tachu]

You could ask that about every module that's made here. The choice was no doubt made for sound reasons, and therefore that is what we will be getting.

 

Maybe Zeus will give a little insight into this at some stage, but whether it is a C, a D, or whatever, you can guarantee it won't be what some people would like.

 

Quite often the choice may be down to what has sufficient documentation and unclassified data available, or which systems can be modelled most effectively.

 

It may of course also be down to the favourites of the developer.

 

Zeus has already clarified that point:

They are making the 2000C because they have the Flight Manual.

 

No such information is available for any other Mirage 2000 models (N, D, -5 and derivatives).

As Azrayen said, this makes them impossible to model at DCS standards. Simple as that.

 

And indeed, if Razbam was doing the D, you can be sure that even more people would be whining (including those who are currently complaining about the C).

The 2000D is the ground attack variant, a specialized aircraft, no guns, only two Fox 2 missiles for auto-defense, limited speed in its standard configuration with 2 subsonic external tanks (knowing that in the French Air Force it NEVER flies without them), etc.

As a mud lover I would enjoy it a lot, but I'd be part of a minority...

 

Anyway, too much classified data so we won't have it.

DCS: Mirage 2000C is definitely the best state-of-the-art simulation of French-made aerial warfare we can get today.

Two years ago I would't have even dreamt about it.

 

I'm not naive, I know that we could repeat the above ten more times, the day after someone would be posting here to ask for a 2000-5 Mk2 with MICA, Exocet and ARMAT, but anyway......

[OttoPus]

 

The only one not implemented yet is the BAP 100

This is the BAP 100

 

 

And it is used to do this:

 

 

Considering that DCS World does not simulate terrain deformation, it could result in a not very useful weapon.

[Sleksa]

Look folks, despite not having the EXOCET and the ARMAT (currently), the M-2000C has an excellent mix of air-to-ground weaponry that you can choose from:

 

* MK-82 x 6

* MK-82S x 6

* BLG-66 Belouga x 8

* GBU-10

* GBU-12 x 2

* GBU-16

* GBU-24

* BAP 100 x 18

* MATRA Rockets x 2

 

What about the BM 400 modular bomb from Thomson Brandt? The biggest difference compared to BLG-66 was the addition of a booster rocket which gave it a range of about 10km

 

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/31tara.htm

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200660.html

[Zeus67]

Considering that DCS World does not simulate terrain deformation, it could result in a not very useful weapon.

 

DCS World has the Durandal, so it must be effective if not graphically enticing.

 

Terrain deformation is hard to do, but flagging a runway as unusable is not. Making your aircraft crash and burn on take-off after hitting the virtual crater is easier to do than the crater itself.

[104th_Cobra]

Terrain deformation is hard to do, but flagging a runway as unusable is not. Making your aircraft crash and burn on take-off after hitting the virtual crater is easier to do than the crater itself.

 

I already asked the implementation for this, multiple times. Without the possibility to classify an runway or taxiway as unusable for a period of time, dependent on damage and repair capabilities onsite, ofensive counter air operations are dismissed. Ingressing, low level - high speed, at a full defended air base... :)

[Zeus67]

I already asked the implementation for this, multiple times. Without the possibility to classify an runway or taxiway as unusable for a period of time, dependent on damage and repair capabilities onsite, ofensive counter air operations are dismissed. Ingressing, low level - high speed, at a full defended air base... :)

 

Just speaking out of my mind, one way to do this is to divide a runway into a series of segments,say six.

 

If a strike by the appropriate weapon is detected, the segment is flagged as unusable and its terrain property changed from paved runway to rough terrain. It can also have a timer element to determine repair time, so it reverts to paved runway after the timer runs out. That way an aircraft moving into the damaged element will be damaged as well and if too fast it will be destroyed.

 

The concept is simple but like all simple things, implementation is the devil in the details.

 

But currently, while not necessarily useful in MP mode it can be useful for campaigns or missions. The goal is to put a bomb in the runway and flag it as hit. You can then create as many defenses as you can around that runway and see if you can ingress, attack and egress without damage. Sounds fun. Perhaps I'll make one after the M-2000C is finished just to show that it can be done.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Zeus67

[OttoPus]

Terrain deformation is hard to do, but flagging a runway as unusable is not. Making your aircraft crash and burn on take-off after hitting the virtual crater is easier to do than the crater itself.

 

With no visual cues it's not funny though.

 

People loves simulations because they simulate things, if I can't see what's simulating, it's a little bit pointless if you know what I mean :D

[KaspeR32]

With no visual cues it's not funny though.

 

 

Actually you mean it's hilarious? :megalol:

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Zeus67

Look folks, despite not having the EXOCET and the ARMAT (currently), the M-2000C has an excellent mix of air-to-ground weaponry that you can choose from:

 

* MK-82 x 6

* MK-82S x 6

* BLG-66 Belouga x 8

* GBU-10

* GBU-12 x 2

* GBU-16

* GBU-24

* BAP 100 x 18

* MATRA Rockets x 2

What about the BM 400 modular bomb from Thomson Brandt? The biggest difference compared to BLG-66 was the addition of a booster rocket which gave it a range of about 10km

 

http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/31tara.htm

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1984/1984%20-%200660.html

 

Don't you think that's enough for an air defense fighter ? :music_whistling:

Moreover you rocket propelled BM 400 seems to be just a project...