Jump to content

M-2000C Pending Update Fix List


CptSmiley

Recommended Posts

it is written in the manual, even has a frame around it... Page 124 on the top, can't be unseen

No, you missed understood. I know own that box is there. I'm talking about not being able to handle GBU-12s and Super 530 missiles under the same limitations. That box does not cover this configuration.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T707A using Tapatalk

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First off, big thanks to RAZBAM and everyone involved for the great work on this module. I'm enjoying it a lot and it feels really nice.

 

Now I'm having some concerns when I look at the January update list (I'm on the stable DCS build so I haven't tried it yet), but it looks like most changes are a decrease in performance. I've noticed that there has been a lot of complaints, from unqualified people in my opinion, that the Mirage is overpowered.

Maybe because people compare it to other planes in DCS? Which I don't think you can. Certainly not FC3's F-15 and Su27, even though they have updated flight models, they remain simplified in their functioning and therefore not realistic to me. I'm sure the upcoming F/A-18 will be interesting and much more accurate, but even there, the Mirage's unique design and characteristics are completely different. Just because these are all modern aircrafts from the same era doesn't necessary mean they should match in all aspects. Or in this case, that they should be better than the Mirage as I feel there is some kind of assumption that the 2000 is a less capable fighter, which isn't true.

 

So to me, unless it comes from an actual Mirage 2000 pilot, you can't really make an assessment of how it should feel to fly it. I'm sure RAZBAM has implemented all relevant real life data available into this aircraft, making comments like "it feels too good", "I can't stall it" or "I get outturned in my F-15, it's wrong!" ridiculous imo.

 

So I just hope that this update is not a result of these recurring "trendy-like" complaints, and that these changes were planned regardless.

I'm all for fine-tuning the module and keep improving it for maximum authenticity, so don't get me wrong, updates are good. But when I saw increase drag here, reduce control there, lower efficiency here, I just reacted.

I trust RAZBAM in making the 2000C the most realistic possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think RAZBAM is reducing the a/c performance because the community tell them so, but because it was initially overpowered and they acknowledged, which is totally fine and normal during the beta testing phase. Testing an FM is time consuming and community can help providing the evidence on those areas of the envelope where it fails. Unfortunately performance charts are not publicly available like in other a/c so we cannot be as inquisitive as we'd like but still there were areas where it was obvious that deserved some attention, and gradually have been fixed.

 

Regards!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, big thanks to RAZBAM and everyone involved for the great work on this module. I'm enjoying it a lot and it feels really nice.

 

Now I'm having some concerns when I look at the January update list (I'm on the stable DCS build so I haven't tried it yet), but it looks like most changes are a decrease in performance. I've noticed that there has been a lot of complaints, from unqualified people in my opinion, that the Mirage is overpowered.

Maybe because people compare it to other planes in DCS? Which I don't think you can. Certainly not FC3's F-15 and Su27, even though they have updated flight models, they remain simplified in their functioning and therefore not realistic to me. I'm sure the upcoming F/A-18 will be interesting and much more accurate, but even there, the Mirage's unique design and characteristics are completely different. Just because these are all modern aircrafts from the same era doesn't necessary mean they should match in all aspects. Or in this case, that they should be better than the Mirage as I feel there is some kind of assumption that the 2000 is a less capable fighter, which isn't true.

 

So to me, unless it comes from an actual Mirage 2000 pilot, you can't really make an assessment of how it should feel to fly it. I'm sure RAZBAM has implemented all relevant real life data available into this aircraft, making comments like "it feels too good", "I can't stall it" or "I get outturned in my F-15, it's wrong!" ridiculous imo.

 

So I just hope that this update is not a result of these recurring "trendy-like" complaints, and that these changes were planned regardless.

I'm all for fine-tuning the module and keep improving it for maximum authenticity, so don't get me wrong, updates are good. But when I saw increase drag here, reduce control there, lower efficiency here, I just reacted.

I trust RAZBAM in making the 2000C the most realistic possible.

Just because you feel like a non mirage pilot is unqualified to make an assessment on a flight model is a mute point. The performance of an aircraft is scientifically deeived. Which means the conformity of a simulated flight model is a matter of science more than expierence. For example, you don't need to be a pilot (a) or a mirage pilot (b) to very correctly assert that this 70s ear fighter should not be able to super cruise at sea level. Seeing as this is a matter of fact. Especially seeing as modern fighters have trouble if they even are able to achieve this, with engines and aerodynamics 45 years more advanced. And there are a lot of issues just as quickly supported by science. Another, the F-15 holds the world record for time to climb, the Mirage does not, therefore, any Mirage out climbing an eagle on a regular basis should pose some questions.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, big thanks to RAZBAM and everyone involved for the great work on this module. I'm enjoying it a lot and it feels really nice.

 

Now I'm having some concerns when I look at the January update list (I'm on the stable DCS build so I haven't tried it yet), but it looks like most changes are a decrease in performance. I've noticed that there has been a lot of complaints, from unqualified people in my opinion, that the Mirage is overpowered.

Maybe because people compare it to other planes in DCS? Which I don't think you can. Certainly not FC3's F-15 and Su27, even though they have updated flight models, they remain simplified in their functioning and therefore not realistic to me. I'm sure the upcoming F/A-18 will be interesting and much more accurate, but even there, the Mirage's unique design and characteristics are completely different. Just because these are all modern aircrafts from the same era doesn't necessary mean they should match in all aspects. Or in this case, that they should be better than the Mirage as I feel there is some kind of assumption that the 2000 is a less capable fighter, which isn't true.

 

So to me, unless it comes from an actual Mirage 2000 pilot, you can't really make an assessment of how it should feel to fly it. I'm sure RAZBAM has implemented all relevant real life data available into this aircraft, making comments like "it feels too good", "I can't stall it" or "I get outturned in my F-15, it's wrong!" ridiculous imo.

 

So I just hope that this update is not a result of these recurring "trendy-like" complaints, and that these changes were planned regardless.

I'm all for fine-tuning the module and keep improving it for maximum authenticity, so don't get me wrong, updates are good. But when I saw increase drag here, reduce control there, lower efficiency here, I just reacted.

I trust RAZBAM in making the 2000C the most realistic possible.

 

On one hand I understand your concerns.

 

On the other hand I think the recent changes are justified. It's a complicated process.

You can't expect to roll at max roll rate (270°/sec) at 25° AoA for instance.

So recent updates are going in the right direction.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you feel like a non mirage pilot is unqualified to make an assessment on a flight model is a mute point. The performance of an aircraft is scientifically deeived. Which means the conformity of a simulated flight model is a matter of science more than expierence.
Only up to a certain point. That's why there are entire squadrons dedicated to testing and evaluating aircraft performance.

 

Hard data is useful, but if that was to be all simulations would be perfect and would require nothing but performance tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only up to a certain point. That's why there are entire squadrons dedicated to testing and evaluating aircraft performance.

 

Hard data is useful, but if that was to be all simulations would be perfect and would require nothing but performance tables.

Well that's my point. If we were talking about the minute facets of the aircraft, such as taxi performance, braking action or how it behaves in a specific configuration or a non standard configuration, fine. But the issues addressed in the January patches are/were blatant inaccuracies which you don't need to have flown the aircraft to point out

not making fun here but it is "moot" point, not "mute" point.

Eff! Yeah, got me there, haha.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Aurora R7 || i7K 8700K || 2TB 7200RPM SATA 6Gb/s || 2TB M.2 PCIe x4 SSD || GTX 1080 Ti with 11GB GDDR5X || Windows 10 Pro || 32GB Dual Channel DDR4 at 2667MHz || Virpil Warbird Base || Virpil T-50 Stick || Virpil MT-50 Throttle || Thrustmaster TPR Pedals || Oculus Rift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think RAZBAM is reducing the a/c performance because the community tell them so, but because it was initially overpowered and they acknowledged, which is totally fine and normal during the beta testing phase. Testing an FM is time consuming and community can help providing the evidence on those areas of the envelope where it fails. Unfortunately performance charts are not publicly available like in other a/c so we cannot be as inquisitive as we'd like but still there were areas where it was obvious that deserved some attention, and gradually have been fixed.

 

Regards!

I see, I didn't know it was innitially wrong. I bought the module in December so I haven't followed the entire process. But that's good it's taken care of and that people help out.

 

Most of the recent updates are kinematic performance tweaks using charts derived from real world data...

On one hand I understand your concerns.

 

On the other hand I think the recent changes are justified. It's a complicated process.

You can't expect to roll at max roll rate (270°/sec) at 25° AoA for instance.

So recent updates are going in the right direction.

Ok that's good. I want it to be as realistic as possible, we all do I suppose. :)

 

Only up to a certain point. That's why there are entire squadrons dedicated to testing and evaluating aircraft performance.

 

Hard data is useful, but if that was to be all simulations would be perfect and would require nothing but performance tables.

Yes exactly!

 

Well that's my point. If we were talking about the minute facets of the aircraft, such as taxi performance, braking action or how it behaves in a specific configuration or a non standard configuration, fine. But the issues addressed in the January patches are/were blatant inaccuracies which you don't need to have flown the aircraft to point out

Yes that is what I mean, for the Mirage specific stuff you need someone with actual experience of the real thing.

 

But I understand now the module is not there yet. It's a long process, so it's good we have a community helping out to point out the errors. Like I said, I reacted because I read complaints of the less objective kind and then the updates, and that combination got me worried.

But it's all good then. Thank you for your answers. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So to me, unless it comes from an actual Mirage 2000 pilot, you can't really make an assessment of how it should feel to fly it. ...

I mention this before here

and here

There is more to it, let me explain;

I am sure all those teams of engineers and technicians that work on the aircraft had a very good understanding of what the aircraft should do and how it behave without having to fly it.

Pilot (generally speaking) do not need to know why this or that happens, they just need to know the effect of an specific action. Many pilots I have met, did not know stuff that I though was basic, for example what are they looking at behind a door on walk around inspections prior to flight, why a flight control move in a certain way, etc. but could do amazing things in the air.

 

So, what I'm trying to say ( and adding to my previous post) in my limited experience on this forums ( and others) there are those that have vast amount of knowledge on the aircraft ( The mirage and others) They know the calculations, how flow separations affects this flight regime etc. Those guys and the guys working on the modules have a lot of knowledge that makes this whole sim systems very enjoyable.

 

The ones to watch out for is the ones that pic a chart or a video online and the attach themselves to it without looking at anything else. Those are the ones that make it harder to understand a system or a behavior of an aircraft and its modeling.

 

As for the latest changes, I have no clue if they make it more realistic or less. But I think all the guys that work on these flight models are doing there very best, and as I have said before, thanks to them and all those with the knowledge to help make some of this aircraft a lot of fun to learn and virtually fly.


Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys title post updated with latest pending changes. Enjoy!

"Witness mere F-14s taking off from adjacent flight decks, gracefully canting left and right, afterburners flaming, and there’s something that sweeps you away—or at least it does me. And no amount of knowledge of the potential abuses of carrier task forces can affect the depth of that feeling. It simply speaks to another part of me. It doesn’t want recriminations or politics. It just wants to fly.”

― Carl Sagan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, il will just add some "troll"...

 

Just because you feel like a non mirage pilot is unqualified to make an assessment on a flight model is a mute point. The performance of an aircraft is scientifically deeived. Which means the conformity of a simulated flight model is a matter of science more than expierence.

 

If things worked that way, test pilots would never existed. Aerodynamic and fluid mechanics are the sciences the most concerned by randomness and details after the quantum mechanics. There are some general rules, yes, there are some well know things, but the real behavior of a desing is never totally predictable. This is why wind tunnels and test pilots exists.

 

For example, you don't need to be a pilot (a) or a mirage pilot (b) to very correctly assert that this 70s ear fighter should not be able to super cruise at sea level.

 

"70's era" is not a scientific argument, this is prejudice. Mirage 2000 was not given as "supercruise" but, that does not mean it can't, in some conditions, be or nearly be. The reality is that we don't know, simply. Only some pilots or engineers involved in the project could tell us.

 

Seeing as this is a matter of fact.

 

No, the fact is that we don't know, except if you have a very precise fluid mechanic simulator that can calculate precise drag on a precise shape, with a precise thrust, etc... or, if you test on the real aircraft.

 

Especially seeing as modern fighters have trouble if they even are able to achieve this, with engines and aerodynamics 45 years more advanced.

 

Rafale is limited to mach 1.8 while Mirage 2000 can reach up Mach 2.2... because Rafale did not have "souris" in airtakes. However, Rafale is supercruise... This is a matter of desing... Technology give more thrust maybe... Is there really something sure about the Mirage 2000 compared to Rafale, except that the mass/thrust ratio is lower ?

 

And there are a lot of issues just as quickly supported by science. Another, the F-15 holds the world record for time to climb, the Mirage does not,

 

Again, this is not a scientific argument... did the mirage tryed to beat this record ? Who were "here" to compare each aircraft, all in an highly classified context, to see which one have "the record" ? "World record of blah blah", this is marketing, not scientific.

 

Anyway... i don't know if Mirage 2000 can "Supercruise" at see level...but if someone say "Me, i know", i would be happy to have more scientifics arguments than "70's era" and cold-war F-15 marketing slogan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway... i don't know if Mirage 2000 can "Supercruise" at see level...but if someone say "Me, i know", i would be happy to have more scientifics arguments than "70's era" and cold-war F-15 marketing slogan.

 

Ok, so would you accept this as a "scientifc argument"?

 

M2000.jpg

 

The plot comes from a serious engineering assessment for BMS M2k FM based on public data available, it's not the official performance chart, no. But you are not going to find anything more carefully done out there, so if I have to stick to something, I would rather stick to this than your argumentation :)

 

Regards



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so would you accept this as a "scientifc argument"?

 

The plot comes from a serious engineering assessment for BMS M2k FM based on public data available, it's not the official performance chart, no. But you are not going to find anything more carefully done out there, so if I have to stick to something, I would rather stick to this than your argumentation :)

 

As i said, i don't know if the Mirage 2000 can be "supercruise" or not, my point was: When we speak about "scientific", we have to use scientifics and logical arguments, or we admit we are in some guesses and we don't use the word "scientifically" as a rhetorical argument. This is the difference between rhetoric and scientific argumentation, precisely.

 

If you really want to be scientific, you should add to this chart all the parameters, data, rules and equations used to produce this chart, so we could evaluate the chart pertinence. I don't ask this, because i don't care, and i don't have the competences to evaluate this kind of work...i have to trust the one that produced this chart. However, you admit that this is not official data, that is some guess based on some know parameters, and you choose this approximation because this is the better you have... so it is ok for me.

 

( And, if we look at your chart, we can see that the Mirage 2000 can be "supercruise" in some conditions. Not at sea level, but in some conditions. )


Edited by sedenion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has the wrong idea here. Supercruise is not defined as above mach1 without ab. It is defined as mach1.5 without ab. Technically the f86 and f5 can both hit machine 1 without ab. So do you then consider that to be Supercruise? So my mig 21 can Supercruise at 5000m in clean configuration at 85%rpm n1?

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.

 

— Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone has the wrong idea here. Supercruise is not defined as above mach1 without ab. It is defined as mach1.5 without ab.

 

In fact, there is the wikipedia definition of "Supercruise", which is, i think, the good one:

Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft with a useful cargo, passenger, or weapons load performed efficiently, which typically precludes the use of highly inefficient afterburners (reheat)

 

So, in fact, the definition is fuzzy... Which is logical, since "supercruise" is another kind of marketing concept. "Ho look, my plane is "Supercruise" ! this is... Super !"

 

Technically the f86 and f5 can both hit machine 1 without ab. So do you then consider that to be Supercruise? So my mig 21 can Supercruise at 5000m in clean configuration at 85%rpm n1?

 

According to the wikipedia definition, yes, they are kind of "Supercruise"... Oups ? Is that mean that this kind of "marketing concept" has nothing to do with "aircraft generation" ? :music_whistling: However, no doubt that engines efficiency increased since the F-5 or Mig-21, so yes, aircraft like Rafale, F-22 or other 4-5th generation, are probably more easily "Supercruise"... justifying the new super concept "Supercruise"


Edited by sedenion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the wikipedia definition, yes, they are kind of "Supercruise"... Oups ? Is that mean that this kind of "marketing concept" has nothing to do with "aircraft generation" ? :music_whistling: However, no doubt that engines efficiency increased since the F-5 or Mig-21, so yes, aircraft like Rafale, F-22 or other 4-5th generation, are probably more easily "Supercruise"... justifying the new super concept "Supercruise"

I don't think they can sustain it, if so, no supercruise.

 

The definition has 3 aspect, which are quite subjective :

1- sustained (I'd assume level flight for more than just several minutes)

2- useful load (just 2 heaters can be deemed as useful load depending on the mission)

3- efficiency (how much is efficient ? an A/B that is light on fuel consumption can still be considered as efficient I guess)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, there is the wikipedia definition of "Supercruise", which is, i think, the good one:

 

 

So, in fact, the definition is fuzzy... Which is logical, since "supercruise" is another kind of marketing concept. "Ho look, my plane is "Supercruise" ! this is... Super !"

 

 

 

According to the wikipedia definition, yes, they are kind of "Supercruise"... Oups ? Is that mean that this kind of "marketing concept" has nothing to do with "aircraft generation" ? :music_whistling: However, no doubt that engines efficiency increased since the F-5 or Mig-21, so yes, aircraft like Rafale, F-22 or other 4-5th generation, are probably more easily "Supercruise"... justifying the new super concept "Supercruise"

Exactly. Just a marketing term for gen 4+ and 5. I like the term sustained supersonic flight without the use of an afterburner. Lol.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.

 

— Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the new parasitic drag parameters being added to the fuel tanks and the 530 I believe the issue of "supercruise" will be wrung out and solved.

So in clean configuration the m2k may be able to sustain supersonic flight without the use of AB however the term of supercruise meaning sustained supersonic flight without the use of AB and a combat load out does not any longer apply to this airframe.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.

 

— Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...