manual performance charts

[Mano]

someone could explain this, please? are you serious?

 

 

Page 108, Mirage2000C manual included in your

DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\M-2000C\Doc

folder

 

thanks

[Zeus67]

What do you need an explanation for?

 

1. There are no available open source material on the true performance charts for the M-2000C.

2. These charts were developed for Falcon 4.0 and are the closest we have to the real thing.

3. Only recently (after all the FM work was done) we got a PVO Strany manual on the M-2000C with some performance charts, but: a. It is in Cyrillic and b. They are close to what we have.

4. The charts are there for your information only.

[Mano]

So basically you're saying that razbam flight model is actually a porting of bms's mirage fm?

 

or your flight model has been made out of other documents that are not publishable?

 

Have you or is there any possibility that it will be tested by some actual mirage pilots in order to verify it or eventually fine tune it?

 

I don't understand why putting into the manual some information coming from another game...this is a bad move imho . It just discredit your work...for which you ask a bit of money as well.

I would have preferred to wait some more time to give you to remake those graphs...or totally avoid publishing them...

 

Inviato dal mio Huawei P8 Lite utilizzando Tapatalk

[jojo]

This charts are reference charts.

 

There is no point to publish charts of unfinished FM.

 

These charts have been done by a really capable guy, and very respected for the quality of his FM for F4. They have been revised and reworked several times in years.

 

It's just the best source available. And that guy was kind enough to share his work.

 

I suspect you don't have better material to give to Razbam, and so far flight behavior is appreciated. So they saved huge amount of time.

 

Think before you right :mad:

[myHelljumper]

If you have any other solution to create the 2000 FM, please share it with us....

[Rlaxoxo]

What a douche jeeez

[tusler]

i am surprised they did not extrapolate info from the good ole F102 Delta Dart and make it work.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/198057/convair-f-102a-delta-dagger.aspx

 

I am sure using BMS's info is probably much closer to reality given the span of time between the two delta wing acft.

Fact is for me is flys better than a rock and not quite as agile as a bird...it is fine I will never know the difference in real life. I do enjoy the fact that it flies different than all the other aircraft in DCS.

[DrDetroit]

Man oh man, the BMS guys probably have more hard to get data and working knowledge on FMs and systems than most civilian flight sim companies - combined! Also with lots of respect in the high-fidelity flight sim community as well! So not a discredit in any way, shape or form, but an advantage...a huge advantage.

 

I swear, these rivet counters really get on my nerves sometimes...

 

Like JoJo said, think before you write!

 

Good day,

 

DrDetroit

[Mano]

well, I expected this kind of answers...totally on the defensive and out of topic...

 

You tell me to think before I write...but do you read before you answer?

 

Nobody here is questioning the quality of BMS performance charts (I know and I like the BMS Mirage model...in effect it could be an indirect cause for which I bought Razbam module!), nor Razbam actual Mirage's FM.

 

I only want to better know what I've payed for. Indeed I just asked why there are BMS performance charts in a DCS module manual. And if Razbam used other material to work on its FM. Because I would have expected that a company selling a DCS module with a supposed AFM (or EFM) would have worked on other (maybe more) official documentation, instead of (the still great) documentation prepared for another sim.

 

I'm not here to make any rivet count. actually I don't even know how the real life Mirage would fly (I'm not a french fighter pilot, sadly)...so I just wanted to know what those charts were there for (I had my answer), and if they were the only source for Razbam FM (and your defensive answer is a yes for me).

 

If you have any other solution to create the 2000 FM, please share it with us....

 

no...unfortunately I don't have any. I would have provided if I could...I'm sorry...but anyway hey...here I'm not the one pretending to sell an AFM DCS Module...I'm a customer here...I think I don't have to provide anything...well...I've already provided my money...isn't it sufficient?

 

It's sad that everybody here always take it so personally to make every discussion a fanboy war.

 

I payed for this module...more for any other games I have got...and as a customer I have the right to make this sort of questions, I think. If not, well maybe I will ask for a refund...or otherwise: lesson learned. but guys, if this is your customer service...good luck.

[tusler]

Mano,

You do raise a point I had not thought of...The programmers who are programming the flight model I would guess would know all the parameters of the flight envelope that "they have programmed" even though the flight model would be perhaps completely different than the real life aircraft, I wonder if the could give extremely accurate performance charts for what they have actually programmed the M2000C to do in the DCS world! These charts would then be very valuable for us who are trying to master this plane!

[myHelljumper]

someone could explain this, please? are you serious?

[...]

 

Sorry but there you were asking for fanboyism :lol:

 

No performance charts will be available for any recent dassault aircraft. It's almost a miracle to have one of their aircraft in DCS with an EFM/ASM, so the only chart available are the BMS ones.

 

As we say in france : Pourquoi réinventer la roue.

 

And yeah I am fanboying and I am proud to be but that's off topic.

[Mano]

Mano,

You do raise a point I had not thought of...The programmers who are programming the flight model I would guess would know all the parameters of the flight envelope that "they have programmed" even though the flight model would be perhaps completely different than the real life aircraft, I wonder if the could give extremely accurate performance charts for what they have actually programmed the M2000C to do in the DCS world! These charts would then be very valuable for us who are trying to master this plane!

 

I completely agree with you...However I'm not a programmer I don't know at all how to implement a flight model like this...but I think that if you want to program an aircraft module of an existing aircraft you should start from performance data coming from the real aircraft...or you elaborate some studies like the blade element theory (just to say one) or similar. I'm okay with the fact that the data are coming from a BMS study...I'm just a bit surprised about that.

At the end, in game, it doesn't make any real difference. As I said I'm not a real pilot so I wouldn't note any particular problem...but for a realistic sim as a AFM module I would expect at least that it should be validated by more solid sources: like official docs or test by real pilots (like the A-10 or the huey).

 

The answer I was expecting was that they worked on other documentation that they're not able to publish for copyright or security reasons...I think that maybe is what they're saying with:

4. The charts are there for your information only.

 

If that's the case I'm happy with that...

[blackasdf]

Mano,

You do raise a point I had not thought of...The programmers who are programming the flight model I would guess would know all the parameters of the flight envelope that "they have programmed" even though the flight model would be perhaps completely different than the real life aircraft, I wonder if the could give extremely accurate performance charts for what they have actually programmed the M2000C to do in the DCS world! These charts would then be very valuable for us who are trying to master this plane!

 

This is exactly the point.

 

Angry comments are just like the people who write them, USELESS. I'd love to reply to some very clever and helpful guys like Doctor Nonsense, but i'm not in the mood for easy trolling, especially when it comes to casual users.

 

Let me just apologize in advance for all the keywords you are gonna read in this reply, but apparently some fundamental aspects are being overlooked.

 

Dear Zeus, you are missing something here... Maybe it's because you are kinda new to the game of developing and supporting your own product or maybe it's just bad attitude. BMS publish free content, top quality content, but the keyword is FREE.

 

We are paying customers here, keyword is $$$, and the game you decided to throw yourself in is called simulation, a pretty "real world data" thirsty enviroment. Noone is talking trash about your work (although i COULD complain because i PAYED for this product), we are just asking for information about the product we bought (sorry to remind it again, but you are not BMS). Getting customers frustrated because you didnt like something someone wrote about your product, is not a good strategy. Less is more when you cant really answer something in a proper way with solid data backing up your answer, especially when there is money involved.

 

People is happy about the mirage? Good for you, i like it too, but you need to provide as much data as you possibly could, clear and concise explanation of what and how not emotion driven answers. Otherwise you could simply choose not to answer this kind of topics and enjoy the posts from the people that aren't worried because "the flying is fine" and "everything will be perfect once the beta ends".

 

Last but not least, good attitude keeps customers satisfied, a satisfied customer is a returning customer.

 

I'm done, i'm leaving space for the fanboys to flame this topic while we won't get any answer because some guy from BMS already did all the work and is absolutely perfect and great and the cyrillic version is somehow CLOSE to what we bought.

 

Wow...

[Rlaxoxo]

I don't think your topc can't be discussed further on not at all some points you stated are valid but I don't like the way you presented your statement.

 

So aggresive so arrogant I don't like that

[myHelljumper]

This is exactly the point.

 

Angry comments are just like the people who write them, USELESS. I'd love to reply to some very clever and helpful guys like Doctor Nonsense, but i'm not in the mood for easy trolling, especially when it comes to casual users.

 

Let me just apologize in advance for all the keywords you are gonna read in this reply, but apparently some fundamental aspects are being overlooked.

 

[...]

 

Wow...

 

:megalol:

 

Do you understand NO DATA AVAILABLE ?

 

yup it is fanboys vs haters here, close it maybe ?

[anlq]

What do you need an explanation for?

 

1. There are no available open source material on the true performance charts for the M-2000C.

2. These charts were developed for Falcon 4.0 and are the closest we have to the real thing.

3. Only recently (after all the FM work was done) we got a PVO Strany manual on the M-2000C with some performance charts, but: a. It is in Cyrillic and b. They are close to what we have.

4. The charts are there for your information only.

 

Regarding the thread.

I know that the mirage is very agile, and some says it is France's F-16, so do you have any RL mirage pilot involved during testing phase of the module ? Or flight model is tested base on given performance chart ?

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

I don't know anything about BMS. But of course it is disappointing to see that Razbam Mirage is a copy of a their copy. So we inherited all BMS great work and all BMS mistakes.

 

I guess I just naively assumed that the FM was working from some kind of primary sources.

 

It just feels like Razbam copied somebody else's homework and sold it to me . Maybe that is the wrong thing to think. But for a moment I felt like I just paid top dollar for a copy of something they could have downloaded for free.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Dirty Rotten Flieger

[billeinstein]

I don't think it's a "copy". F4 BMS and DCS are two totally different games. Even the same performance of a same aircraft type does not mean that the FM modelling are the same things or "copy" something.

Edited December 28, 2015 by billeinstein

[BaD CrC]

New charts available: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2618711&postcount=45

[Redglyph]

This is exactly the point.

 

Angry comments are just like the people who write them, USELESS. I'd love to reply to some very clever and helpful guys like Doctor Nonsense, but i'm not in the mood for easy trolling, especially when it comes to casual users.

 

Let me just apologize in advance for all the keywords you are gonna read in this reply, but apparently some fundamental aspects are being overlooked.

 

Dear Zeus, you are missing something here... Maybe it's because you are kinda new to the game of developing and supporting your own product or maybe it's just bad attitude. BMS publish free content, top quality content, but the keyword is FREE.

 

We are paying customers here, keyword is $$$, and the game you decided to throw yourself in is called simulation, a pretty "real world data" thirsty enviroment. Noone is talking trash about your work (although i COULD complain because i PAYED for this product), we are just asking for information about the product we bought (sorry to remind it again, but you are not BMS). Getting customers frustrated because you didnt like something someone wrote about your product, is not a good strategy. Less is more when you cant really answer something in a proper way with solid data backing up your answer, especially when there is money involved.

 

People is happy about the mirage? Good for you, i like it too, but you need to provide as much data as you possibly could, clear and concise explanation of what and how not emotion driven answers. Otherwise you could simply choose not to answer this kind of topics and enjoy the posts from the people that aren't worried because "the flying is fine" and "everything will be perfect once the beta ends".

 

Last but not least, good attitude keeps customers satisfied, a satisfied customer is a returning customer.

 

I'm done, i'm leaving space for the fanboys to flame this topic while we won't get any answer because some guy from BMS already did all the work and is absolutely perfect and great and the cyrillic version is somehow CLOSE to what we bought.

 

Wow...

 

I have a different point of view on this.

 

Please read it again, Zeus' answer was to the point, he must be quite busy and he actually bothered to answer what is unquestionably a troll's question, to me it was very well handled and showed more cool than most of us would have had. jojo's reply elaborated on the concerrn once the OP finally expressed himself in a more, if barely polite, understandable way. Job done.

 

IMHO, making a fine product doesn't mean you have to prostrate yourself before such rude behaviour, it's not as if we were talking about selling potatoes. The product we are talking about has a reputation of its own and that is what sells, not the quality of the vendor's smile when he faces angry kids.

 

Besides, the tone has to be set, you wouldn't want this to become the norm here ;)

[AussieGhost789]

I have a different point of view on this.

 

Please read it again, Zeus' answer was to the point, he must be quite busy and he actually bothered to answer what is unquestionably a troll's question, to me it was very well handled and showed more cool than most of us would have had. jojo's reply elaborated on the concerrn once the OP finally expressed himself in a more, if barely polite, understandable way. Job done.

 

IMHO, making a fine product doesn't mean you have to prostrate yourself before such rude behaviour, it's not as if we were talking about selling potatoes. The product we are talking about has a reputation of its own and that is what sells, not the quality of the vendor's smile when he faces angry kids.

 

Besides, the tone has to be set, you wouldn't want this to become the norm here ;)

 

The problem is we are reading text on a forum. We can't properly understand the tone in which someone replies because we can't hear their voice. I find that the way we read a response often reflects our current mood. It seems blackasdf interpreted Zeus' response as being somewhat hostile. Personally, I feel that the way the OP was written invited a less than friendly response. Saying that, I didn't really pick up any hostility in Zeus' answer. In fact, I'm quite pleased to see the devs actually responding to threads like these.

 

Normally I'd avoided conversations like this, but I hate to see devs getting bashed for actually taking the time to respond.

[Mano]

My first question in fact wasn't meant to be rude anyway. I'm not native English so maybe it's that the problem of interpretation. I had a doubt that I think I've explained and has been answered by Zeus and others. No trolling here.

It's jojo's answer and others following that changed the tone of the discussion that I continue to think is a legitimate question.

 

I appreciate certainly that the developers answer to users questions. I don't understand the answers of others that pretend to build up defences without any reason.

 

The answer that no data is available at this time only support my supposition that this module has not any real basis or underground for realism like other benchmark modules around here have instead. And I would like to be answered that instead it is not like this, and studies on the real thing have been carried on and maybe can't be published for security reasons...

 

Inviato dal mio Huawei P8 Lite utilizzando Tapatalk

[Redglyph]

Yep, written text is subject to interpretation, sometimes makes for awkward ones. Short questions like "are you serious?" invite to human's defence mechanisms embedded for thousands of years ;) So if it's an actual question out of interest, it's probably best to read it from the other's point of view and maybe worth explaining a bit more :)

 

The aircraft is made of multiple parts, one of them being the flight model. This one is coming from J.M. Langeron ("Topolo", see http://topolo.free.fr/news.htm but this site hasn't been updated in a long time since its V5 flight model AFAIK), who iterated and collected data / feedback from many people, but except allusions to leaked data, I never saw anything "official" - and I would be surprised to see anything, given this is still secret material.

 

There's another model from Bernt Stolle, used in the Metal2Mesh's M2k with inputs from "3 pilots, 2 mechanics and former FAF officers"... whatever that means. It would be interesting to compare both (and it has probably been done when those models were adjusted).

 

So it is as good as it gets until the FM is declassified. Anyway you only have a limited interface with the virtual world in which these aircraft fly: a joystick, rudder pedals, maybe a throttle, TrackIR or even a VR helmet... Still, you're far from the real experience, I'm not sure it's worth questionning whether those charts are 0.1% or 0.05% accurate, for me it's enough to know they have been validated for years by many knowledgable people.

 

jojo surely knows a lot more about this, but given how the thread started I'm not sure he'll come back and explain - once more, the fine details behind this model... that's probably why it's worth engaging in a conversation... let's say, more smoothly.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Redglyph