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

[luckyhendrix]

I see everyone mentioning that "this module will eventually get a EFM" has there been any official statement of this from RAZBAM?

[NeilWillis]

Yes, read back on this thread!

 

Zeus stated that he hopes to have the EFM rolled out , but when it will happen remains to be confirmed.

[tobaschi]

I'm surprised so many people are jumping on board so early. We've seen nothing in DCS from this company, and their first offering is priced along the lines of the A-10C (which is a masterpiece) That bar is set so high, that I wouldn't even take a chance pre-ordering. Add in the lack of communication on the forums, it's a "wait for reviews" module for me.

 

well thats a legit approach. For myself Razbam have a great reputation and i fully trust the Razbam/Metal2Mesh team.

 

Cant wait to see how the cockpit will look in the oculus dk2 :pilotfly:

[Phantom453]

Congratulations to RAZBAM for reaching this DCS milestone.

 

The teaser video is well ... a really good tease. Has me hooked! Looks really, really good and also makes NTTR look really good too. Only the missile smoke trails seemed a bit off to me, as they just look a bit too uniform IMHO. Of course it will be interesting to view some raw flight footage of the module to see more of the systems, sounds and flight characteristics etc. as they really are in game, without enhancement.

 

I was however a bit surprised by the price. With a standard price of $60 for an AFM module, that's 20% more than say the MIG 21 for example ($50). One would logically question, "what extra are we getting for that extra 20% in price?" There is nothing apparent in the details released on the module so so far to justify this difference IMHO. Especially not with an AFM. Perhaps that extra detail will be released in the next couple of months before the module drops? Sure it is on a pre-sale ATM at a reduced price, but so are most modules when they first go on pre-sale. I'm just making a value for money comparison here, hence why I use the standard price for both in the example above.

 

I'd also be interested to know when the pre-sale price is scheduled to end exactly?

Edited September 19, 2015 by Phantom453

[NakedSquirrel]

Seems like everyone randomly jumped on the skepticism bandwagon for one of the first non-WWII and non-trainer fixed wing aircraft. :(

 

 

You forget the Mig-21 so soon? :cry:

 

Leatherneck did an absolutely amazing job on their module, and apparently RAZBAM has been making great modules for FSX for a long while. I can't wait to fly the Mirage in DCS!

 

 

[Flogger23m]

You forget the Mig-21 so soon? :cry:

 

Leatherneck did an absolutely amazing job on their module, and apparently RAZBAM has been making great modules for FSX for a long while. I can't wait to fly the Mirage in DCS!

 

 

 

I said "one of the first". ;)

[Zomba]

I just hope this FM confusion doesn't repeat again like before with all the mess that caused.

[VikingTsunami]

I can't seem to find any answers on the Armat Anti Rad missile and the Exocet on the announcement page. Anyone know if they will be modelled?

[Scarecrow]

Quick question before purchase. This module is releasing with a SFM and later update to EFM?

 

I think this is a fair price for an aircraft of this scope if it has an EFM.:)

[Deezle]

Quick question before purchase. This module is releasing with a SFM

No.

[VikingTsunami]

 

It seems Reddit is impressed :)

[WildBillKelsoe]

It will be AFM but why not PFM like A-10C? I'd shell more for PFM.

[Wolf Rider]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=67746

Originally released at $59.99.

 

 

it was also PFM...

 

 

I've promessed myself not to buy into any DCS early modules anymore but I just wanted to say that if I hadn't I'd be all over this Mirage, it looks gorgeous and well done. Congratulation, I hope the sales goes well and I very much look forward to buying your product on release. :thumbup:

 

In regards to the magnificent promotional trailer, is it edited? There seem to be quite a few effects added, blurriness and camera shaking for example.

 

Also the sound, it's the sort of jet engine sound that tears its way through the sky that we've all been hoping for in DCS for quite some time now. Is it really in game or just... edited too?

 

Principles (Developers)... what's going on here?

Edited September 19, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[NeilWillis]

Again, people seem to miss the whole classification thing with AFM PFM EFM etc.

 

Do yourselves a favour, and do a search for the correct definitions. Please Please Please!!!

 

Do you know how tedious it becomes to see all the same questions and comments over and over?

 

The official line with the M2000C is that the EFM is being worked on, and it will be a feature of the module. They describe it as Advanced Flight modelling in the blurb released when the pre-sale was announced yesterday. Is it so difficult to work it out yourselves? As for whether it will be part of the Beta release - perhaps not. That is why it is called Beta (in other words an incomplete test version of the module). If you're not happy with the incomplete status, the solution is very very very simple. Wait until it is perfected before you buy.

 

But most importantly, this question has been asked before, and Zeus has answered it as fully as he can right now. Doing a search should be a very basic skill on any user forum - don't you agree?

[john_X]

Good job Razbam! It's looking very good.

[Wolf Rider]

Again, people seem to miss the whole classification thing with AFM PFM EFM etc.

 

Do yourselves a favour, and do a search for the correct definitions. Please Please Please!!!

 

Do you know how tedious it becomes to see all the same questions and comments over and over?

 

The official line with the M2000C is that the EFM is being worked on, and it will be a feature of the module. They describe it as Advanced Flight modelling in the blurb released when the pre-sale was announced yesterday. Is it so difficult to work it out yourselves? As for whether it will be part of the Beta release - perhaps not. That is why it is called Beta (in other words an incomplete test version of the module). If you're not happy with the incomplete status, the solution is very very very simple. Wait until it is perfected before you buy.

 

But most importantly, this question has been asked before, and Zeus has answered it as fully as he can right now. Doing a search should be a very basic skill on any user forum - don't you agree?

 

EFM, is not PFM... simple stuff, (AFM/SFM is the shallow end of the pool offering) check for yourself :)

Edited September 19, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[OnlyforDCS]

I will definitely buy this plane, but only once the EFM is released. I have no interest in flying SFM even with a potentially great modules such as this one. To me the flying part is the most important part of any sim. Also waiting to hear word on where the training missions & campaign will be based (NTTR or Black Sea).

[Cantiga]

EFM, is not PFM... simple stuff, (AFM is the shallow end of the pool offering) check for yourself :)

I do not really understand, but...what the differences?

PFM is ED's internal aerodynamics/systems software. It tends to be different for every aircraft.

 

The EFM is really an interface that allows the 3rd parties to tie their own physics engine (aerodynamics and systems) into the game. In other words, the aerodynamics and systems (like hydraulics and fligtht control systems, engines) created by ED = PFM, if created by 3rd party = EFM.

 

EFM can be as high or as low quality as the 3rd party wishes it to be.

 

SFM/AFM/PFM SSM/ASM are ED marketing terms, so they don't apply to EFM.

[Wolf Rider]

The below is provided to explain the various fidelity levels of flight dynamics and cockpit systems modeling available in our various DCS aircraft simulation products. We provide this to you to help better understand what your are purchasing:

 

Standard Flight Model (SFM). This has not changed and defines a more data-driven means of achieving flight dynamics, in conjunction with some scripting. SFM was used in the Lock On series and is still used in the Flaming Cliffs 3 Su-33 and MiG-29. However, we do plan to update these at a later time.

Advanced Flight Model (AFM) and AFM+. An AFM uses multiple points of force application and calculation on the relevant flight surfaces. This simulates edge of envelope conditions well and avoids scripted behaviors as used in an SFM. This system also partially implements the aircraft's flight augmentation systems. DCS aircraft that use AFM includes the Su-25T. A further evolution of the AFM is what we term the AFM+ and this uses the same calculations as AFM but adds limited modeling of the hydraulic and fuel systems. Examples of AFM+ in DCS include the Su-25 and A-10A.

Professional Flight Model (PFM). This is generations beyond an AFM/AFM+ and is based upon:

 

• Use a wider array of wind tunnel tests CFD methods for aerodynamics parameters calculations.

• A higher level of aircraft construction details for forces calculations. For example: our landing gear model includes individual kinematics of retracting/extending is used to calculate its movement, servo-piston forces, etc. In such cases, we truly use real lengths, arms, etc. This also includes such items as a realistic simulation of airflow along the airframe due to the propeller or helicopter rotor thrust.

• Realistic simulation of Flight Control, CAS and Autopilot systems.

• Realistic simulation of Hydraulics, Fuel, Electrical, Engine and other systems influence flight characteristics.

• Unprecedented access to test data packs.

 

This is combined with much more detailed and accurate accounting of the physical forces on the aircraft and airfoils. DCS examples of the PFM include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, F-15C and Su-27 (in development) for DCS Flaming Cliffs, and the Fw190-D9 (in development).

 

External Flight Model (EFM). Used by our partner developers, the EFM uses only a part of PFM - rigid body physics and contact model. What forces and moments are applied to this rigid body from aerodynamics and any other sources except the contact forces is up to EFM developer.

 

Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft.

Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM). An ASM enabled aircraft goes into great depth to model the intricacies of the various cockpit systems, to include functionality for almost all the buttons, switches, dials, etc. A key element of an ASM cockpit is the ability to interact with it using your mouse. ASM DCS examples include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2.

 

In the coming weeks, we will be updating our store pages to use these product definitions.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

 

 

now is it clear?

Edited September 19, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[Дикий]

In Russian version will be, who knows?

Well there management settings, manual and everything Russian.

About inscription in the cockpit do not say.

[NeilWillis]

EFM, is not PFM... simple stuff, (AFM/SFM is the shallow end of the pool offering) check for yourself :)

 

Don't put words into my mouth. I said to check, I didn't define anything!

[VincentLaw]

I do not really understand, but...what the differences?

This seems to be a recurring problem. At the risk of confusing everyone even more, I'm going to provide an alternate way of thinking about stuff:

 

SFM = SFM

AFM = EDFM1

AFM+ = EDFM2

PFM = EDFM3

EFM = XFM

 

Now with terms like that you only have to worry about three things: SFM I would call the simple flight model, because it is mainly used for AI planes. EDFM would be a flight model made by Eagle Dynamics, and a higher number means it is better. XFM is a flight model made by eXternal parties (third parties). It is not a standard of quality; it just means ED didn't make it. Now, let me know if that helps or if I just confused you more.

 

(I used XFM instead of EFM so that it isn't too close to EDFM since that would also be confusing.)

[Wolf Rider]

its really quite clear as it was... just takes refreshing now and then to clear out the muddied up river

 

 

Don't put words into my mouth. I said to check, I didn't define anything!

 

not "putting words into your mouth", sorry to say... I'm supporting your point

Edited September 19, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[NeilWillis]

"SFM = SFM

AFM = EDFM1

AFM+ = EDFM2

PFM = EDFM3

EFM = XFM"

 

So, no confusion there - let's introduce even more terms to describe the same things!

 

And who can say how complex or in depth RAZBAMs aerodynamic modelling will be? EFM just means it isn't EDs modelling, and cannot be classified as either AFM or PFM.

 

Just read what RAZBAM have told us, and draw whatever conclusions you may. Nowhere does RAZBAM say they will be producing or not producing either EDs definition of AFM or PFM. They simply describe it as advanced flight modelling in their blurb. ED will describe RAZBAMs modelling as EFM whether or not it reaches the PFM level of modelling.

 

If you read that definition of EFM as just posted, it states clearly enough - "What forces and moments are applied to this rigid body from aerodynamics and any other sources except the contact forces is up to EFM developer."

 

To reiterate, "up to the EFM developer" is the get out clause. It neither states, nor implies anything other than that ED cannot define exactly what EFM modelling means. They can only state that it is not to the same definitions as AFM or PFM, and could exceed, match, or fall below either of the ED definitions.

 

In short, wait and see! Now can we get back on topic and end this rehash of definitions that have, as I already said, been discussed and defined elsewhere.

Edited September 19, 2015 by NeilWillis

[NeilWillis]

its really quite clear as it was... just takes refreshing now and then to clear out the muddied up river

 

 

 

 

not "putting words into your mouth", sorry to say... I'm supporting your point

 

Sorry then, I misunderstood what you were saying.