Two questions

[IcarusGR]

1) Will there be a Snap Up switch in the Mirage 2000C (like in the F-1)?

 

2) Will there be any anti-radar weapons eventually (like Armat)?

[Zeus67]

1) Will there be a Snap Up switch in the Mirage 2000C (like in the F-1)?

We'll see. I need more info on this.

 

2) Will there be any anti-radar weapons eventually (like Armat)?

Perhaps. There is now a lively discussion among ourselves between the purists and the dissidents on this and other features.

[IcarusGR]

Snap up alowed the Cyrano radar to paint targets that fly at 20.000 ft when F-1 was low on deck. (whithout pointing the nose up) and shoot the -530.

Since enemy jets had little or none Look Down capabilities it was quite handy tactik.

 

I think it was more a message to the missile to calculate for a very steep climb.

[Kayos]

Please add ARMAT :)

[Zeus67]

Snap up alowed the Cyrano radar to paint targets that fly at 20.000 ft when F-1 was low on deck. (whithout pointing the nose up) and shoot the -530.

Since enemy jets had little or none Look Down capabilities it was quite handy tactik.

 

I think it was more a message to the missile to calculate for a very steep climb.

 

The current version already allows you to steer the radar antenna up or down. You don't need to maneuver the aircraft anymore to paint a target.

[QuiGon]

We'll see. I need more info on this.

 

 

Perhaps. There is now a lively discussion among ourselves between the purists and the dissidents on this and other features.

 

*Crossing fingers for the purists* :D

[WinterH]

*Crossing fingers for the purists* :D

 

+1 Add another finger crossing purist here :music_whistling:

[Custard]

On the topic of ARMAT, if Razbam know how ARMAT is fired on other SEAD capable Mirages and can port that procedure over to the 2000 I say go for it. But if they've no idea and would just be making up HUD symbology etc then I don't think anyone really wants that...

[jojo]

The only available data for MARTEL/ARMAT use are from vintage fighters like Jaguar A or Mirage III E...

 

Fact:

From more general point if view, export Mirage 2000 E have a different data bus which allows the use of targeting pod and smart weapons.

Guess:

So these kind of weapons are not plug & play on Mirage 2000 C. Its weapon computer may not be able to "talk" with smart weapons.

[tombeckett2285]

MARTEL AS37 (as used on Jag, F1 and Bucc) wasn't used on M2000. ARMAT has been; but it uses an improved version of the AS37 passive homing guidance system which is pre programmed with expected target radar or jamming frequencies on the ground. Midcourse guidance updates are provided after launch, so I would assume that the missile is provided with an INS position update from the launch platform before launch (much like Sea Eagle). It is a very heavy weapon though, weighing 50% more than a HARM and twice as much as an ALARM so it's definitely not a defensive/suppressive weapon - it's exclusively for dedicated, planned DEAD missions only.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zeus67]

MARTEL AS37 (as used on Jag, F1 and Bucc) wasn't used on M2000. ARMAT has been; but it uses an improved version of the AS37 passive homing guidance system which is pre programmed with expected target radar or jamming frequencies on the ground. Midcourse guidance updates are provided after launch, so I would assume that the missile is provided with an INS position update from the launch platform before launch (much like Sea Eagle). It is a very heavy weapon though, weighing 50% more than a HARM and twice as much as an ALARM so it's definitely not a defensive/suppressive weapon - it's exclusively for dedicated, planned DEAD missions only.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Aaand you are giving more ammunition to the purists. :pilotfly:

[tombeckett2285]

Perhaps Zeus ;) but then again, purists sometimes have to 'relax' their expectations - it's all just functions, calls and values pretending to be an M2000/A10/F18 etc really isn't it? There aren't real electrons, gallons of hydraulic fluid or laser designation beams in DCS (or any other simulation). If they want to be really anal about 'realism', then if they get shot down their PC should self destruct and they shouldn't be allowed to launch the simulation ever again! :D

 

My opinion - if it can be integrated smoothly and in a way that would genuinely enhance the module for a majority (not just a vocal majority, but the silent one too), and there is even circumstantial evidence that usage of a weapon is/was possible in a real life war scenario then it should be included.

 

At the end of the day buddy, that's your call though ;)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[splash]

+1 for tombeckett2285.

 

Probably many features from the real Mirage-2000 are unknown so, what's the problem in including some systems/weapons to enhance playability? For example, I hate the 4-minute delay to align INU in A-10C. Yes, it in the real plane. Then, why don't add an hour delay to rearm weapons for example or one day to repair? I'm enjoying M-2000C a lot in its current state and any system or weapon added would be very welcome from my part.

Edited March 30, 2016 by splash

[Azrayen]

Probably many features from the real Mirage-2000 are unknown

Mhmm? Like what?

We may not know the detailed technical data, but it's not that hard to know if a feature exists or not on the aircraft.

 

My opinion - if it can be integrated smoothly (...), and there is even circumstantial evidence that usage of a weapon is/was possible in a real life war scenario then it should be included.

Agreed with your opinion :)

My "problem" with that is that I, too, agree with both conditions you wrote and I quoted just above.

And (sadly) those conditions are not met.:book:

[splash]

Mhmm? Like what?

We may not know the detailed technical data, but it's not that hard to know if a feature exists or not on the aircraft.

 

 

Agreed with your opinion :)

My "problem" with that is that I, too, agree with both conditions you wrote and I quoted just above.

And (sadly) those conditions are not met.:book:

 

OK, no problem, I was refering to some features like IR jammer, for example, or radar operation (it has been stated in the forum that it will be implemented the best as you can). Right now I don't have the time required to look for all the threads, but here are a few samples:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2701557#post2701557

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156963

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2701557#post2701557

 

In the real manual there are some functions in the stick that have been implemented in a slightly different way in M-2000C (my French is not very good so I could be wrong).

 

Probably many things have been reported as bugs or are in your roadmap already. For the record, I was not criticizing, I'm happy with the module.

[Azrayen]

Hi splash,

 

First, let me clarify a possible misunderstanding: by "we" I meant the general public; I'm not part or Razbam team and can't speak on their behalf. ;)

 

Some threads you linked (thanks!) are representative of what I wrote, i.e.: "We may not know the detailed technical data, but it's not that hard to know if a feature exists or not on the aircraft."

Indeed we (general public) know that there exist a Eclair pod (and it was operationaly used on M-2000C), we know that there exist a D2M (and it is operationaly used on other variants, and M-2000C probably has wiring for it given a control was implemented for it in the cockpit).

 

Regarding the HUD topic, my understanding is that Razbam's one is still WIP (due to INS not being there, for example, and this may not be the only cause).

 

Finally regarding the stick and the manual: the manual stands for an older variant (RDM) and the stick (and throttle, BTW) are not exactly the same (IRL) on the RDI. I can't comment on Razbam's data for implementing it, though.

 

Hence nothing in your (pertinent) remarks/questions justify - in my eyes - that the ARMAT should be implemented.

 

For the record, I'm just a simmer, I'm neither in a position to, nor willing to somehow "forbid" ARMAT to be implemented if Razbam guys feel they should do it. I may even try it, and find it fun. :)

OTOH, with the best of my knowledge, I can't "buy" the pretences about this being representative of a reality.

In short, my position is: Do it if you want, just don't try to sell it as realistic (or bring along harder evidence than what I've seen for now).

 

Regards,

Az'

Edited March 30, 2016 by Azrayen
typo

[jojo]

If they want to be really anal about 'realism', then if they get shot down their PC should self destruct and they shouldn't be allowed to launch the simulation ever again! :D

 

My opinion [...]

 

Disrespectful comment (to say the least) from someone who, obviously, knows next to nothing about Mirage 2000, French weapons or French Air Force in general.

Because despite all the beautiful and fun skins it's the French variant Mirage 2000C RDI.

 

Then I could tell you what we say about opinion in France, but it would be disrespectful as well...

[tombeckett2285]

Disrespectful comment (to say the least) from someone who, obviously, knows next to nothing about Mirage 2000, French weapons or French Air Force in general.

 

Because despite all the beautiful and fun skins it's the French variant Mirage 2000C RDI.

 

 

 

Then I could tell you what we say about opinion in France, but it would be disrespectful as well...

 

 

 

I think you've really taken my opinion out of context chap.

 

It wasn't a pointed offensive comment towards yourself, France, the Air Force or Dassault. It was a humorous observation on gamers (not just within the DCS environment, but flight sim in general) who are on an ever more aggressive quest for 'realism' and 'accurate simulation' - my point was where does one draw a line? If you want the ultimate in realism and to mirror real life consequences then if you get shot down then you can't play the game again, or at least for a few days/weeks/months. Is this too much in the realism stakes?

 

I really don't know why so many gamers get their pants all twisted up over 'realism'. Like I already said, a simulation is just lots of numbers and functions fed into the processor to produce a desired result. The engine isn't 'simulating hydraulic pressure in controls', it's just producing some numbers what the programmer has asked it to in a particular situation.

 

At the end of the day, as a business, if adding ARMAT, Exocet and AS30 to the M2000 to produce a hybrid C/D version but using the RDI radar would guarantee RAZBAM another 10,000 customers they'd be foolish not to do it (I'm not saying it actually would guarantee that, it's a hypothetical point), regardless of what the most vocal and dedicated to realism consumers think.

[Buzzles]

@tombeckett2285

 

Try not to confuse realism with accuracy.

 

I for instance don't like the Kh-66 being available for LN's Mig21, simply because it's not accurate in the slightest that the particular version we have could use it (it physically can't, requires a different radar).

 

Same applies for other weapons, if the 2000c did use the ARMAT, then it should be included if possible.

 

Obviously I'd not like to see something included if the data isn't available or easily extrapolated. That's the accuracy of the what is being simulated.

 

Realism would be things like the aforementioned repair times. Completely unrealistic, but a pretty much necessary addition to DCS. Or reloading/refueling being done in 30 seconds etc..

[jojo]

It's the general idea of DCS World.

 

Then you can add vectored thrust, why not ?

AIM-120 on Leatherneck F-14A, Lantirn pods and GBU on F-15C. Where do you stop ?

If you don't have ARMAT the fun will be to make COMAO with Hornet when it's ready.

 

I took it for me because since the beginning I try to explain to people the technical and tactical reasons which make impossible the ARMAT on Mirage 2000C RDI.

 

I talk about French Air Force because the plane was designed and used in a specific context and time. A time when FAF used specialized fighters.

It's a Cold War warrior who survived until today. Post Cold War upgrades were still aimed at giving it better AA capacity (CME, CCME, radar, NCTR).

GBU-12 addition was not big deal since it's delivered as general purpose 250kg bomb.

 

But laser pod, SEAD weapon etc...doesn't suit this plane, both for technical and tactical reasons.

Should the Cold War gone "hot", the plane would have been tasked with air defense missions, because there would have been other specialized aircrafts and crews to fulfill AG tasks.

 

I was in Cambrai AB (home of 2 Mirage 2000C RDI squadrons) in 1994 for Tiger Meet. SEAD task was Tornado ECR job.

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by jojo

[tombeckett2285]

@tombeckett2285

 

Try not to confuse realism with accuracy.

 

I for instance don't like the Kh-66 being available for LN's Mig21, simply because it's not accurate in the slightest that the particular version we have could use it (it physically can't, requires a different radar).

 

Same applies for other weapons, if the 2000c did use the ARMAT, then it should be included if possible.

 

Obviously I'd not like to see something included if the data isn't available or easily extrapolated. That's the accuracy of the what is being simulated.

 

Realism would be things like the aforementioned repair times. Completely unrealistic, but a pretty much necessary addition to DCS. Or reloading/refueling being done in 30 seconds etc..

 

I haven't got them confused. What LN, RB or any other developer chooses to include or not include is up to them.

 

Let's take an example; Any aircraft can carry a laser guided bomb, it doesn't require any special hardware if the laser code is set beforehand and the bomb is dropped within the range of an externally designated cone. Why isn't every aircraft within DCS therefore equipped with LGB's?

 

Just my $0.02, take it or leave it. No offence should be taken from a different point of view. That's what makes this hobby interesting.

[nomdeplume]

I really don't know why so many gamers get their pants all twisted up over 'realism'.

It's not that mysterious. I mean if someone suggested to give the A-10C HARM and AIM-120 and afterburners (and variable-geometry wings so you don't rip them off the moment you light the burners), would you think that was perfectly reasonable, or kind of silly? Certainly it may increase sales. But it's not really a "simulation" of an "A-10" at that point, is it?

 

Like you said, it's a question of where you draw the line. If you allow some fantasy, then that line becomes extremely contentious. It's therefore not at all surprising or hard to understand why many people end up taking this position: if you are simulating a particular aircraft, then limiting it to the weapons and systems it's actually operational capable of using and cleared to use in real life makes sense.

 

Even though it can sometimes be hard to find authoritative data, it is at least an objective line: either an aircraft is operationally capable of using a specific weapon, or it isn't. If you can show evidence that a particular weapon system is or can be employed by the aircraft, you have a very strong case for its inclusion, and it's very hard for people who don't like (or just aren't interested in) that system to argue against it.

 

If you decide to implement things just because they're useful to players or kind of cool and you can reasonably imagine how it would work if it had been on the real aircraft, then how do you argue that an A-10 "simulation" shouldn't have air-to-air radar and afterburners?

 

Another important consideration is simply that if you start doing "fantasy" things like that, you remove (or at least reduce) a major aspect of what people find engaging about simulators, and that is working out how to employ a specific platform given its strengths and especially its limitations.

[Azrayen]

Hi tombeckett

 

my point was where does one draw a line?

Straight and simple answer about that:

The "line" is the aircraft technical/operational capabilities, within the simulator's limits.

 

Regards,

Az'

[PitbullVicious]

I really don't know why so many gamers get their pants all twisted up over 'realism'.

 

Why would you even require to know (I think what you really mean here is "understand")? Or are you implying that some of us should not be allowed to enjoy the pursuit for realism?

 

Like I already said, a simulation is just lots of numbers and functions fed into the processor to produce a desired result. The engine isn't 'simulating hydraulic pressure in controls', it's just producing some numbers what the programmer has asked it to in a particular situation.

 

To me this seems contradictory. Yes, due to limited resources there are different levels of simulation, but isn't simulation by definition about modelling the "nature" by producing those numbers via algorithms / functions? So that the numbers correspond to the real world phenomena with desired accuracy (which is highly dependent on the context).

 

At the end of the day, as a business, if adding ARMAT, Exocet and AS30 to the M2000 to produce a hybrid C/D version but using the RDI radar would guarantee RAZBAM another 10,000 customers they'd be foolish not to do it (I'm not saying it actually would guarantee that, it's a hypothetical point), regardless of what the most vocal and dedicated to realism consumers think.

 

Can't we enthusiasts have at least one title that tries to simulate historic and modern combat aviation to the detail that DCS does?

 

I'm sure there are already several other titles that are aimed for other kind of gamers. Simply put: I'm not saying what you should or should not enjoy, so I sure as hell don't want you to tell me what I should enjoy either and try to take it away from me.

 

Of course, business side of things is one big question. Obviously this kind of hobby isn't a huge money maker, but hopefully it will offer a few companies with rather specific skill set a good enough market, so that they can make a worthwhile profit out of it, rather than try to make it in other, more competitive market area.