The Détecteur de Départ Missile (DDM)

[AOG]

Why would you promise it in the first place if you know that it is unrealistic? Not trying to sound smart but I don't get it. I don't want a mixture of the M-2000C/D which never existed. I want the M-2000C with all it flaws and features :)

 

Rivet counters :dontgetit:

[blast]

Seriously i don't understand people complaining about the infrared missile detector.

 

That feature exists and can be mounted on version C of the mirage too. So there is no point for saying it's not realistic. If you don't like this feature you can turn it off with D2M switch and then you will be happy.

 

By the way, it was planned since beginning we will have this feature.

 

So end of discussion kids.

 

you also have to keep in mind that this is a game ok, not a simulator dedicated for real pilots. Despite the great job made on this mod it will never be like in reality since many aspects are simply classified.

 

And finally we would have a better chance against su27 to avoid ET missiles during multiplayer sessions which is good point and a good reason to have it.

[NevSmith]

Year, dear Zeus - keep on upgrading " The Chasseur " :-)). There can only be one way for DCS/Razbam's Mirage - 2000: Getting better and better !!!

ALL of my YES too !!! Mirage 2000-5 Mk2 we are coming LOL :pilotfly::

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/customer-support/mirage-2000/mirage-2000-5-mk2/

 

Have a nice weekend to all of you

Edited November 26, 2016 by NevSmith

[Manzanita]

 

:music_whistling:

[Robin_Hood]

For all we know, the French Air Force could decide tomorrow to add the DDM to the Mirage 2000C, now that they do quite a bit of air-to-ground work. I heard that they have started to use NVG very recently (like this year, or something), so why not DDM ?

 

However, I also think that if it is possible, having the option to have it or not would be great, with a possibility to force it off (if it's a pod, then you can forbid it with the supply system) to ensure historical scenarios.

 

I want to say thank you Zeus and all of RAZBAM, for being so nice and understanding of requests and comments, you guys are great!

 

Concerning the functionality of the DDM, have you looked at the similar system from the A-10C? The MLWS (Missile Launch Warning System) emits an audio warning if a missile launch is detected ; it cannot show a direction, though. I have no idea how different the two systems are, I am simply comparing with the only (?) other warning system there is in DCS.

[jojo]

Just to make things clear...

 

The button on ECM panel and led light on RWR display prove nothing. It has been there since the very beginning even before the "SAMIR" DDM has been designed.

 

The matter didn't move forward until France lost a Mirage 2000N in Bosnia in 1995, probably shot down by MANPAD.

 

It isn't plug & play, Mirage 2000N needed an upgrade to be able to use it.

 

Razbam decided to make it optional on Mirage 2000C so be it. There is no way to please everyone.

[Azrayen]

re_coreSix:

You feel it's unrealistic. You'll have the option to not use it.

I feel it's realistic (*). I'll have the option to use it.

 

Everybody wins :)

 

(*) and I'm knowledgeable enough on the aircraft to know it's not been used so far IRL, but also that provisions were made to use it on French Cs, should the need arise; and in fact, with the C deployed in Africa at least twice since 2014 in support of Ds, should a serious manpad threat materialize there, we would quickly see the DDM appear on the Cs (through same upgrade as was made on Ns & Ds, the French dedicated "strikers" 2000 variants). ;)

Edited November 26, 2016 by Azrayen

[il_corleone]

Why would you promise it in the first place if you know that it is unrealistic? Not trying to sound smart but I don't get it. I don't want a mixture of the M-2000C/D which never existed. I want the M-2000C with all it flaws and features :)

 

Dont carry it.

[Frostie]

So it's kind of like putting 30mm cannons on the P-51D because even though its not a standard feature it could be done. 3rd party modules for DCS, I like where this is going.;)

[il_corleone]

So it's kind of like putting 30mm cannons on the P-51D because even though its not a standard feature it could be done. 3rd party modules for DCS, I like where this is going.;)

 

It´s not it could be done, there is no info about 30mm cannons on the P51 but instead, we have info of implementation or at least try to with the DDM and the Chasseur version

[VTJS17_Fire]

I can do that, my problem is the pylon model. As in I will need two pylons, one with and one without, to reflect this possibility. Let me see what can be done.

Thanks for your effort, Zeus. Dependend on the mission, I also like my Mirage as most as accurate to the real aircraft.

[levanoga]

It´s not it could be done, there is no info about 30mm cannons on the P51 but instead, we have info of implementation or at least try to with the DDM and the Chasseur version

 

So its exactly like the DDM, no info available, only guesswork, never used.

[Gliptal]

So its exactly like the DDM, no info available, only guesswork, never used.

Everything pertaining countermesaures is guesswork, on all DCS aircrafts.

[zaelu]

I have no big problem in providing this "sensor" for M2KC in principle.

 

However...

 

People keep saying "I don't understand xxxx". I guess you know that is just an expression which in most languages means you actually do understand or have a strong opinion about and don't agree with it. Otherwise, as Freud would probably say... look no further than the direct meaning of the words you say. "You don't understand something"... ask for information to be "enlightened about the issue".

 

I... do have an opinion. I think people that like this option only think at the way this would be abused in multiplayer in AA combat. A Battlefield style anti-IR-Warning Receiver.

 

Why I say this?

 

All the people that jumped in happiness about this said nothing - NOTHING! about how bad such thing would perform for ground attack, how unreliable would be.

 

135° rear side coverage,

no upper coverage AT ALL

down facing coverage EXTREMELY limited or close to a blade like zone

range... probably a small zone under 2-3km

 

Zeus said that he extrapolated 135° and looks OK, also he said that upper coverage is ZERO because of the wing above the sensor and down facing coverage we can assume is far far far far worse than its 135° lateral which is made by using the angle shaped prisms. Downwards it has no angled prisms for help. So probably it has something like 2° coverage.

 

Now how this would work although classified it's is not really hard to understand. It's an optical sensor similar with an optic mouse sensor. It constantly analyse the image it gets (the poor one) and searches for certain patterns. Like big white puffs on green/brown background. It could have some algorithms for optimizing this to avoid false positives (like passing over some white buildings and system going haywire).

 

The system probably is tuned to have a very shallow "depth of field" so it can focus itself on a certain dangerous range (from 1km to 2Km maybe or even less)and probably it has things to filter out any alarm that may be triggered by a wing moving the sensor view above the horizon exposing it to blue sky with puffs of white clouds.

 

Probably the systems turns it self off for every flare launches from own aircraft for a while.

 

For the Rafale the system might be activated only when in Close Combat Modes and probably it will first try to find the launching plane as a darker spot on the sky and then distinguish any white puffs from a launch (any launch Radar guided included) from it.

 

 

 

 

For people that "don't understand the strive for realism of others... uh-oh... "... Try to imagine someone would hack your DCS World game and make all the planes/helicopters mix between them Cockpits/FMs/External models. Would you "feel" the same? Would you like it the same as it is now? If not then understand that you are exactly like the others that want "100%" realism is just that you settle for less where that less is not a measurable value. Its subjective and not worthy to fight over it. You don't want to fly in DCS a F18 like in Battlefield 2 would you? Then if you understand yourself when compared with BF2 F18 players then you can understand also the others that want planes in DCS as close as possible with reality and ESPECIALLY avoid unrealistic things that are completely avoidable.

 

 

 

So maybe this thing should be attached to the plane as an option only when the plane caries ground attack ordnance?

 

Let's see who is against this "option"?!? :music_whistling:

[iLOVEwindmills]

So these things don't match up for me

 

would be abused in multiplayer in AA combat.

135° rear side coverage,

no upper coverage AT ALL

down facing coverage EXTREMELY limited or close to a blade like zone

range... probably a small zone under 2-3km

So it would be abused for air to air, but at the same time it's barely capable of defending against ground threats? So how exactly does it help in air to air when threats are even less likely to be within its FoV? Edited November 26, 2016 by iLOVEwindmills

[nomdeplume]

It's an optical sensor similar with an optic mouse sensor. It constantly analyse the image it gets (the poor one) and searches for certain patterns. Like big white puffs on green/brown background.

It's an IR sensor; it detects the heat from the exhaust plume from a missile launch.

 

So it probably won't be able to warn of IR missiles that have finished their burn time, as they're unlikely to be producing enough heat to be detected.

[zaelu]

So these things don't match up for me

 

So it would be abused for air to air, but at the same time it's barely capable of defending against ground threats? So how exactly does it help in air to air when threats are even less likely to be within its FoV?

 

 

Well... FBW simulation limits have been used to "expand" aircraft envelope... you think those limits are infallible in a simulation? :) You can't simulate the entire physics of that sensor especially when it's classified.

 

It's an IR sensor; it detects the heat from the exhaust plume from a missile launch.

 

So it probably won't be able to warn of IR missiles that have finished their burn time, as they're unlikely to be producing enough heat to be detected.

 

I'm not sure how you could detect the heat of an opposite facing rocket engine but... maybe. Still "optic" system nonetheless isn't it?

Edited November 26, 2016 by zaelu

[microvax]

For me the implementation is fine as long as the possibility to put it on was there.

 

I am also happy about the effort Razbam puts in to make it possible to be disabled for more hardcore simulations. Because lets be honest most of the people I know rarely fly in hardcore real scenarios, but it exists.

 

A 30mm Cannon on a p51 is a pretty strong exageration. There where no p51s with 30mm cannons nor an option that the Air force could have bought them with 30mm cannons as an off the batch option.

 

And indeed its not an visible light sensor. With back then computing power and resolution it would be borderline useless trying to detect missiles with that. Pretty much has to be IR or UV.

 

And for your question about how you can detect an rocket motor on IR or UV.

 

All aspect fox2s work on planes. from all aspects. A rocket motor is a vulcano on IR/UV, especially solid fuel. Works the same way all aspect. :)

Edited November 26, 2016 by microvax

[zaelu]

Let's not exaggerate on the difference between Visual and IR. You say IR is easier to see and track? It's very fine by me.

 

I even found some videos

 

 

 

 

true not from incoming point of view

[droopy114]

IMHO, another unnecessary discussion about a feature....i don't see the problem, the plane can carry this sensor, but IRL it was never selected, certainly due to budget....but he can carry it, right? happily in DCS World we are not budget limited, it's a sim, after all....

Edited November 26, 2016 by droopy114

[PiedDroit]

Zeus said that he extrapolated 135° and looks OK, also he said that upper coverage is ZERO because of the wing above the sensor and down facing coverage we can assume is far far far far worse than its 135° lateral which is made by using the angle shaped prisms. Downwards it has no angled prisms for help. So probably it has something like 2° coverage.

The prism-shaped glass we see is probably not the sensor itself.

Usually the shape of the protective glass is made so if doesn't generate too much distortion on the sensor's input.

[Darkwolf]

Doesn't look like a big game changer in that specific case, but having 3rd party straying voluntarily from realism is a bit concerning.

 

From there, why not add R77 for sukkhoi, and the neverfielded antiship missile to the Su-33 ? :D

[Zeus67]

Just an aclaration. I never said that down visibility is bad. It is obvious that the D2M was designed to detect MANPADs so perfect down visibility is a must. I said that there is a blind spot at the rear due to sensor placement.

 

The C can use it but it has never been fitted with one, probably due to two reasons:

 

1. The C is mainly an interceptor and France has always had dedicated attack aircraft like the Jaguar.

2. To keep costs down.

 

The D carries it but then the D is a strike aircraft.

[Rlaxoxo]

IMHO, another unnecessary discussion about a feature....i don't see the problem, the plane can carry this sensor, but IRL it was never selected, certainly due to budget....but he can carry it, right? happily in DCS World we are not budget limited, it's a sim, after all....

 

Imagine if we all had to pay for our fuel and repairs when we get back lol

 

I bet some hardcore simmers out there that find these things not "Realistic" will actually love that.

4$/10L of fuel (To balance it out)

I bet they're gonna treasure their Fuel then and be careful how much they load pier mission ...

 

Better yet let's start paying the loadout and see how many A-10's will have the full 6 mavs 10 bombs , 6 rocket launcher load outs that cost >1 mil $

 

While on this topic should we also remove the Mirage ECM box from the aircraft as well?

Cus it normally doesn't sit there unless you have a ECM pod.

Or have you got used to it by now that you probably didn't even know about that like many other things in DCS sim ...?

 

Or wh ....

.

..

...

 

Oh who am I kidding what's the point of this ...

Me trying understand someone who thinks on a completely different wave length then me ...

Edited November 26, 2016 by Rlaxoxo

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

If those people want the most accurate then they don't have to load it simple as that. Why are most of you complaining that you don't want it yet you have the option of jot loading it. That doesn't make sense. I think it's a great idea. And for those that think it's a seal clubber then think of this. In an a2a engagement when you are in a turn and fox1 you should in theory be above and behind your opponent, thereby rendering the sensor useless. So if you're attacking from behind and below then that's not RAZBAMs fault for putting your own aircraft in a disadvantageous position. Keep up the great work Zeus

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk