ARMAT?

[myHelljumper]

I'm not speaking for the majority just like you :music_whistling:

[jojo]

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the "majority" of the community. It is clear a large amount of people would like the ARMAT. Only a pole could tell for sure.

 

Also saying "In 5 years when we have X" does NOT make me feel better!!! :lol:

 

Here is the end all be all where I am concerned... If sufficient documentation can be found to implement the ARMAT onto the Mirage 2000C in a realistic manner, EVEN IF the plane never carried it, I say go for it.

That's not a small IF...the only books I have talk about Mirage IIIE or Jaguar A and it's not detailed.

 

Having non-french liveries for the M2000C is justification enough.

Please be serious...consider these liveries as a gift to the community. These liveries would have been made by the community anyway, so it spares times to talented "painters". Nothing more.

Would the request have been legitimate if the liveries have been made by the community ?

 

If it is simply not possible to realistically implement it even if it was never carried or tested because we cannot find out how the weapon worked, so be it.

Until new data come to surface this is the current situation.

[Redeye26]

Here's a suggestion for both sides of the argument . Why not develop the ARMAT and include it in the module as it is plausible after all . Let those that want to use it , use it , and those that dont , dont have to use it . Seems fair to me .

 

Dont get me wrong , i love the realism and i like to keep things as close to reality as possible but DCS is a sim and not reality , and if members of this community want the ARMAT why not allow the option .

 

For me i dont really care either way , i love this French bird so i'll take it as it comes . :joystick:

[TomCatMucDe]

I don't think you should speak on behalf of the "majority" of the community. It is clear a large amount of people would like the ARMAT. Only a pole could tell for sure.

 

Also saying "In 5 years when we have X" does NOT make me feel better!!! :lol:

 

Here is the end all be all where I am concerned... If sufficient documentation can be found to implement the ARMAT onto the Mirage 2000C in a realistic manner, EVEN IF the plane never carried it, I say go for it. Having non-french liveries for the M2000C is justification enough. If it is simply not possible to realistically implement it even if it was never carried or tested because we cannot find out how the weapon worked, so be it.

 

That being said, I think many of us would love to have this weapon if it could be done. It adds a whole new and much needed mission set to an already great aircraft.

 

 

 

This would be really nice too, as having a variant with the RDM radar would be awesome.

 

he said he doesnt think the majority wants, yet you say he doesnt have the right to speak about the majority, and you say it is clear that the majority wants it. That's weird.

 

From what Jojo said, we have no evidence that RDI used ARMAT in real. Lots of people want realistic airplanes, and not spaghetti

[jojo]

Yes, but no one want to believe me :D

[Hook47]

he said he doesnt think the majority wants, yet you say he doesnt have the right to speak about the majority, and you say it is clear that the majority wants it. That's weird.

 

From what Jojo said, we have no evidence that RDI used ARMAT in real. Lots of people want realistic airplanes, and not spaghetti

 

Mother of god, when will you learn to READ what I actually say. I said MANY, as in a large number, NOT A MAJORITY. Give me a break, dude. . .

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority

 

Stop taking my posts out of context to start arguments. It gets old.

 

That's not a small IF...the only books I have talk about Mirage IIIE or Jaguar A and it's not detailed.

 

Please be serious...consider these liveries as a gift to the community. These liveries would have been made by the community anyway, so it spares times to talented "painters". Nothing more.

Would the request have been legitimate if the liveries have been made by the community ?

 

Until new data come to surface this is the current situation.

 

You be serious. When I did I say it was a small if? I didn't, because neither you nor I know what type of material RAZBAM has access to, and I doubt the extent of RAZBAM's research ability is limited to Jojo's books. My logic holds, even if you do not want to admit it. Inclusion of non french liveries FROM THE DEV is NO more or less realistic than inclusion of the ARMAT. Heck, you can even call if a gift to the community. The liveries WERE NOT made by the community, therefor the request is quite valid (by your own reasoning, just in reverse) and you are guilty of the logical fallacy know as "red herring" I'm afraid. I guess RAZBAM should save the time of talented modders and include the ARMAT then? :lol:

 

Yes, but no one want to believe me :D

 

In my case, and probably the case of other, it has nothing to do with not believing you, it is more that I don't care if it was used in real life. I couldn't care less, just like I don't care that we have non-french liveries planned for a french only variant! What I care about is A. if the plane would have been capable of it, or easily modified to use it and B. if the correct documentation is available to realistically simulate it. Obviously is RAZBAM is still considering it the same logic applies to it as having non-french liveries, in that sure it isn't true to real life, but it is a worthy departure from real life to give more enjoyment out of the module. I do not see why some people dig their heels in so deep to try to prevent this from happening.

 

Here's a suggestion for both sides of the argument . Why not develop the ARMAT and include it in the module as it is plausible after all . Let those that want to use it , use it , and those that dont , dont have to use it . Seems fair to me .

 

Dont get me wrong , i love the realism and i like to keep things as close to reality as possible but DCS is a sim and not reality , and if members of this community want the ARMAT why not allow the option .

 

For me i dont really care either way , i love this French bird so i'll take it as it comes . :joystick:

 

A very reasonable approach, one which I agree with entirely, however it seems some parties that oppose it also oppose anyone else having it, why I do not know. :megalol:

Edited January 9, 2016 by Hook47

[Paganus]

From a purely capitalist point of view;

 

Will inclusion of the ARMAT cause any loss of sales?

 

Not likely.

 

Will inclusion of the ARMAT cause any increase in sales?

 

Maybe, yes.

 

Is the effort to get it in worth the payoff?

 

Only RAZBAM knows.

[Hook47]

From a purely capitalist point of view;

 

Will inclusion of the ARMAT cause any loss of sales?

 

Not likely.

 

Will inclusion of the ARMAT cause any increase in sales?

 

Maybe, yes.

 

Is the effort to get it in worth the payoff?

 

Only RAZBAM knows.

 

Bingo. I personally know three people who all state they would buy the module simply based on inclusion of the ARMAT. I bought it either way but having a new SEAD aircraft is a big deal to some.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Hook47

[jojo]

There is a lot of work to do.

 

Making a weapon system that don't belong to the aircraft is a waist of time...

[Redeye26]

Every BMS player (sorry to bring it up ) is desperate for a full fidelity DCS module with some SEAD capability , it might not be completely realistic adding the ARMAT to the M2000c but how padantic do we want to be , its a sim after all . You could argue that M2000c should only be flown in French livery . Its not exactly black and white which is why i believe the option should be there .

 

Just think of those sales and the boost to the community , it would be a great trade off , and still within the bounds of "sim realism " .

[Redeye26]

There is a lot of work to do.

 

Making a weapon system that don't belong to the aircraft is a waist of time...

Zeus has stated that they were thinking about it . And , an increase in sales and community numbers is not a waste of time , its a big bonus .

I'm not wading in on this argument as i really dont care how the final package from Razbam arrives . Its a great bird already and i will put many hours into this ,but if Razbam develop the ARMAT then both sides are happy which equals more money and development and keeps my sim alive .

[jojo]

Every BMS player (sorry to bring it up ) is desperate for a full fidelity DCS module with some SEAD capability , it might not be completely realistic adding the ARMAT to the M2000c but how padantic do we want to be , its a sim after all . You could argue that M2000c should only be flown in French livery . Its not exactly black and white which is why i believe the option should be there .

 

Just think of those sales and the boost to the community , it would be a great trade off , and still within the bounds of "sim realism " .

 

I don't understand the point. BMS has several modes to fire HARM. Most of them are pretty good.

 

There is a contradiction in requesting a full fidelity module, and asking a weapon system without any data on how to use it...

Edited January 9, 2016 by jojo

[Redeye26]

I don't understand the point. BMS has several modes to fire HARM. Most of them are pretty good.

 

There is a contradiction in requesting a full fidelity module, and asking a weapon system without any data on how to use it...

Yes BMS has many good modes , VRS F18 is even better , DCS has only Su25T and many people that play BMS and VRS would play DCS alot more if it had a full fidelity SEAD platform such as Mirage M2000c with ARMAT .

 

There is not really any contradiction as i'm not requesting for a weapon system without any data on how to use it . I am suggesting it would be a good thing to include the ARMAT for the community as a whole . Also i am suggesting BMS flyers would appreciate the ARMAT and would switch to DCS because of it .

Edited January 10, 2016 by Redeye26

[jojo]

We don't have data to make a full fidelity ARMAT firing sequence on M-2000.

It would be wild guess...even without taking care of M-2000 variant. There is no cue on how to use Armat/ Martel on any Mirage 2000.

[Redeye26]

We don't have data to make a full fidelity ARMAT firing sequence on M-2000.

It would be wild guess...even without taking care of M-2000 variant. There is no cue on how to use Armat/ Martel on any Mirage 2000.

That is fine with me , but a shame nonetheless .

[Hook47]

There is a lot of work to do.

 

Making a weapon system that don't belong to the aircraft is a waist of time...

 

That is your opinion. My opinion is it is time well spent, and considering years of beta is the norm around here they got plenty of time

 

We don't have data to make a full fidelity ARMAT firing sequence on M-2000.

It would be wild guess...even without taking care of M-2000 variant. There is no cue on how to use Armat/ Martel on any Mirage 2000.

 

You say that like its fact, but neither you or I know the extent of RAZBAMs resources or what they do or do not have access too, and I find it extremely hard to believe data on how it worked on even a 2000E at the dry least isn't available.

 

Like said above- I sincerely doubt any purist will turn their nose up at the M2000C because it has a weapon that wasn't used on the platform. There is several things on this and other aircraft that were made with little to no data. RWR symbology is a total guess for instance. If they can find out how it worked on the E, make it work that way on the C for all I care!

Edited January 10, 2016 by Hook47

[jojo]

Just try to find a picture of a Mirage 2000 flying or firing an Armat/ Martel...apart the few ones of Mirage 2000C RDM from 1/2 Cigogne bases in Dijon at the time.

 

It was done for Paris Airshow.

 

Just that is hard. Now imagine finding data about how to use it...what do you think ?

 

Razbam is CIA or KGB, they have full documentation about all M-2000 variant, but there is a secret plot to prevent you from getting SEAD on a fast moving jet in DCS World ?

[nomdeplume]

And keep in mind Armat is not an opportunistic SEAD weapon, must be pre configured on the ground for the specific type of radar to engage, etc. That etc is pretty big, it isn't just symbology and switchology that is unknown, but how to employ the weapon in the more general sense. Even just adding the preflight configuration will be a chore since DCS has no ability innately for this sort of thing. RAZBAM may need to implement this anyway for LGB seeker codes, but maybe they will just a single hardcoded code there.

 

While a limited anti radar missile sounds intriguing, there is definitely a lot of much higher priority things to get working first IMO, even if they do manage to find sufficient information to implement Armat.

[Azrayen]

You say that like its fact, but neither you or I know the extent of RAZBAMs resources or what they do or do not have access too, and I find it extremely hard to believe data on how it worked on even a 2000E at the dry least isn't available.

:megalol: :megalol:

 

Ramsey, you just made my day (and risk spilling my coffe, but that's another matter).

 

Really, m8, you're assuming far too much. ;)

[Hook47]

:megalol: :megalol:

 

Ramsey, you just made my day (and risk spilling my coffe, but that's another matter).

 

Really, m8, you're assuming far too much. ;)

 

Assuming WHAT? No one but Razbam knows what source documents or SMEs they have access to, and if you do then prove it. Check this out dude and think about it carefully- saying I/we do not know what source documents Razbam has or hasn't is actually the OPPOSITE of assuming... Now I'm the one experiencing a "megalol"

 

And like I said, I would be surprised if no one can find out how the ARMAT was fired at least on the E model. Even if know one on god's green earth can find out, it would be far from the only thing on this or other aircraft that is subject to part or total guesstimation.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Hook47

[Azrayen]

I'm glad you laught too, it's a nice way to begin a day. :)

 

And like I said, I would be surprised if no one can find out how the ARMAT was fired at least on the E model.

I would be delighted if one can (and surprised, but in a good sense).

 

++

Az'

 

PS: sent you a PM.

[Corsair]

Yes BMS has many good modes , VRS F18 is even better

There are not good modes and some other less good.. BMS just simulate HARM firing modes related to the F-16, and VRS to the F/A-18, which are different (self defense modes on the Bug i.e).

[myHelljumper]

I think he won't let it go... :megalol:

[Zeus67]

Anything doing to the AS-37 MARTEL or ARMAT is totally WAGuess. Like the RWR and other self-defense systems, this is totally classified and no public documents exists. We only know the missiles exists because they have been seen and from statements made by the manufacturer, which are nothing more than sales pitches.

 

How the missile works, its limitations, etc. are completely hidden from view.

 

This is one of the reasons, the other being no conclusive proof the missile was ever used by a M-2000C or M-2000E. The photo of a missile in the inboard pylon at an air show, could be nothing more than a sales pitch and thus not relevant.

 

We want to keep the WAGuess factor to a minimum. But no decision has been made on the missile yet.

 

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

[gospadin]

We have two other weapons systems to develop:

The BLG-66 BELOUGA and the BAP-100, which IMO are more interesting. Specially the BAP-100.

 

If you don't mind me asking, is RAZBAM planning to enable the AIM-9 as an "official" configuration for the M-2000C?

 

Edit: Also, are you planning to do all 3 variations of the BLG-66 listed on the French wikipedia site?

 

thx!

--gos