The Détecteur de Départ Missile (DDM)

[iLOVEwindmills]

But surely you do understand that some people want the most accurate representation possible? I'm not against small departures like this, specially not when Zeus has explained why it's included and offered the option of disabling it for more real world inspired missions.

Having it certainly opens up the possibilities for some fun fictional scenarios as well.

 

Additionally I dont think it's the norm for pilots to pay for fuel and ordnance out of pocket as that might negatively affect the combat capabilities and availability of aircraft.

 

 

Well it's also not 'accurate' that it's flying in a cold war gone hot scenario, engaging both advanced enemy fighters and striking ground targets defended by modern missile systems.

 

Is it particularly unrealistic to imagine that in such a scenario, considering the possibility of doing so and the usefulness for the missions its doing, a modification like the D2M would have been installed?

[The Legman]

Yeah some are overly obsessed with "realism" but they carry 6 mavs on the Hog. Fun times.

[Gliptal]

Actually the Hog loadouts make an excellent point. A-10Cs never fly with TERs full of Mavericks, and if they do they leave home the TGP. The latter is also used much less IRL than what we can do in the sim. MWS and countermeasures are also made up, as well as the JTRS and JDAMs. Yet nobody bats an eye.

[iLOVEwindmills]

Neither of you seem to be disagreeing with anything I actually said, are you adressing previous posters?

 

Not disagreeing with you, just going further on the point of people disliking it because it's not accurate.

[Dale]

Zeus, thanks for working this one out in a way that is fair to everyone! I cant wait to use the D2M on the Mirage, this bird keeps getting better and better.

[zaelu]

Rlaxoxo I want to tell you first that I appreciate a lot the things you've done and do for DCS (mods, youtube films, etc) but I find your (continuous) remarks over the "hyper realism guys" or whatever you call it, un-sporting or a bit disrespectful.

 

It's like me going to a gym club and start lifting weights and doing a good job but no real performance stuff because I'm not interested and then... just start making a mockery on the people doing that stuff.

 

I mean... I don't do weights lifting (as a sport) in real life but I can imagine this is like playing DCS. You realize most of BF - Warthunder or whatever else arcade style player doesn't give a rats arse on a correct alignment procedure for INS system on Mirage 2000C (C not other sub variant that might have different procedure), don't you? So your playing this style of simulation are just as ridiculous to them as the guys you laugh about are for you.

 

For example, I don't play A-10C hardcore style... or any other aircraft but I do understand the ones that want to and I don't find appropriate to make mockery of their style. We can do jokes because we are not too stiff isn't it but...

 

If people that play the game like this are for constant mockery from you then it must be the same with those who program such things like this because they must take them selves even more serious.

 

So maybe you can ease up a bit on this making fun of "realistic people" because they are after all... your people.

 

===

 

 

I would also want to ask Zeus what he thinks about limiting this D2M system to be available as an option only if Air to Ground weapons are mounted on the pylons. This as a measure of limiting any potential abuse of the system in A2A combat by... design or limits of the DCS simulation.

 

It would be a shame to ruin the immersion of many players with any future bug that would let people not only use this in A2A but to use it more than it would be possible even in a "dream".

Edited November 26, 2016 by zaelu

[myHelljumper]

Rlaxoxo I want to tell you first that I appreciate a lot the things you've done and do for DCS (mods, youtube films, etc) but I find your (continuous) remarks over the "hyper realism guys" or whatever you call it, un-sporting or a bit disrespectful.

 

It's like me going to a gym club and start lifting weights and doing a good job but no real performance stuff because I'm not interested and then... just start making a mockery on the people doing that stuff.

 

I mean... I don't do weights lifting (as a sport) in real life but I can imagine this is like playing DCS. You realize most of BF - Warthunder or whatever else arcade style player doesn't give a rats arse on a correct alignment procedure for INS system on Mirage 2000C (C not other sub variant that might have different procedure), don't you? So your playing this style of simulation are just as ridiculous to them as the guys you laugh about are for you.

 

For example, I don't play A-10C hardcore style... or any other aircraft but I do understand the ones that want to and I don't find appropriate to make mockery of their style. We can do jokes because we are not too stiff isn't it but...

 

If people that play the game like this are for constant mockery from you then it must be the same with those who program such things like this because they must take them selves even more serious.

 

So maybe you can ease up a bit on this making fun of "realistic people" because they are after all... your people.

 

True, I have been very disappointed by the "those types of guys" like I say stupid things...

[spiddx]

IMO the best solution would be to simply make two different variants of the Magic, one with and one without the D2M pylon. Then depending on your loadout the system is or isn't functional in the jet.

That way multiplayer mission creators can restrict it's usage if they want to. And in SP, who really cares?

[Frederf]

There are three typical logical blind spots associated with fictional capabilities and all of them have appeared in this thread:

 

1. No harm in better performance.

2. You can choose not to use it.

3. Optional realism is the same as enforced realism.

 

First, objective evaluation looks at any decision both from the perspectives of the Mirage pilot and his opponent. Imagine you're a Combined Arms module commander protecting a factory with MANPADSs. Suddenly Mirage capability isn't a positive.

 

Regarding #2, choice may be available sometimes but not at all times. Take the above situation and put it online and you do not have complete control over preference any more. Imagine if the MiG-21 could shoot AMRAAMs. In single player you could choose to disable them but where is your choice when you get shot down by a multiplayer opponent? DCS is among other things a multiplayer environment where it is impossible for more than one user's preference to be obeyed. It doesn't even have to be opposition. Imagine wanting to fly in a teamwork-oriented way but your fellow flyer doesn't need your help because of some non-real capability that makes you unneeded. Anyone second in line behind an A-10 with a max load of CBU-105s knows this pain all too well.

 

Number 3 is a more subtle concept but imagine trying repeatedly to beat a Mirage mission and getting shot down by MANPADSs during the attack. Even if you concluded that DDM wasn't what you wanted the temptation is there. Putting the user in the place to choose between doing it the satisfying way and getting game results is bad game design. Making the user have to hold themselves back what they know they can do should never happen. Video games are supposed to allow the user to try their best against external restrictions. If the user has to be both contestant and game designer that will severely limit satisfaction.

 

That isn't to say I disagree with the DCS Mirage 2000C having DDM, the opposite. I think the only logical, defensible train of thought is that the Mirage 2000C does have DDM capability realistically in the environment it finds itself in. The distinction is between fiction and speculation. Almost a requirement is to go further to say that M2KC not having DDM in this environment would be unrealistic. Be firm in your design. Just because this system hasn't been paired with this platform doesn't make pairing it in DCS unrealistic.

 

A tank which has always been painted tan would realistically be painted green for a protracted jungle war. Has this tank ever been painted green to date in reality? Irrelevant to the discussion. It would be. That is the only type of thinking which makes any sense. Any other justification for "fictional" capability leads down an irrecoverable and illogical road.

[Rlaxoxo]

Rlaxoxo I want to tell you first that I appreciate a lot the things you've done and do for DCS (mods, youtube films, etc) but I find your (continuous) remarks over the "hyper realism guys" or whatever you call it, un-sporting or a bit disrespectful.

 

It's like me going to a gym club and start lifting weights and doing a good job but no real performance stuff because I'm not interested and then... just start making a mockery on the people doing that stuff.

 

I mean... I don't do weights lifting (as a sport) in real life but I can imagine this is like playing DCS. You realize most of BF - Warthunder or whatever else arcade style player doesn't give a rats arse on a correct alignment procedure for INS system on Mirage 2000C (C not other sub variant that might have different procedure), don't you? So your playing this style of simulation are just as ridiculous to them as the guys you laugh about are for you.

 

For example, I don't play A-10C hardcore style... or any other aircraft but I do understand the ones that want to and I don't find appropriate to make mockery of their style. We can do jokes because we are not too stiff isn't it but...

 

If people that play the game like this are for constant mockery from you then it must be the same with those who program such things like this because they must take them selves even more serious.

 

So maybe you can ease up a bit on this making fun of "realistic people" because they are after all... your people.

 

===

 

 

I would also want to ask Zeus what he thinks about limiting this D2M system to be available as an option only if Air to Ground weapons are mounted on the pylons. This as a measure of limiting any potential abuse of the system in A2A combat by... design or limits of the DCS simulation.

 

It would be a shame to ruin the immersion of many players with any future bug that would let people not only use this in A2A but to use it more than it would be possible even in a "dream".

 

I don't know man this entire topic is kinda going on my nerves to be honest ...

 

It feels so pointless to argue over this like

"Put an option to limit it only when you have ground ordinates ..."

So it wouldn't be "Abused" in A2A which if you kinda take a look at it isn't even realistic lol

 

I have different way of thinking towards this and while I do understand the concept of realism people strive for i find it funny that people seam to ignore so many examples like this one here but way worse just because they didn't know how it was built at the time and now they kinda got used to it ...

 

And now a Developer which in fact lets be honest didn't have to write this post here explaining how he did it and stuff but he did it nonetheless seam to ignited this "Fire" into some people saying that it's not realistic and that they're worried that devs are not striving for realism ...

 

D2M was planned in the design for the Aircraft ...

It has the systems onboard

It had the capability for it ...

 

But if you look at it there wasn't really any need for it since it was an intercept variant of the aircraft and look down sensors that could "Maybe" detect a IR launch wasn't worth the price or the politics of Air Combat at the time ...

So I don't see what's the bug fuss about it and WHY is this looked down upon as a non "Realistic" feature. Take a look around the sim and you'll find alot more of example of this ...

 

Missiles are crap ...

F-15 can go into space without any engine issues.

F-15 can pull 12G's all day with no structure damage what so ever

...

I mean look at DCS ECM ... it's practically crap compared to what it can really do ...

Yet everyone seams "fine" with this and it buggs me

 

I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think that's one of my strong suites when it comes to handling my way of thinking but that doesn't mean I have to agree to them.

I honestly think that bickering about this topic is completely useless but at the end of the day that's also my opinion so you don't have to agree with it ether

 

I don't know what else to say ... Is there even a point to this?

I guess not ...

 

I think I'm done trying to engage on this topic since my point on this is clear and it's obvious me saying anything won't really change much anyway plus I don't believe it can end well for me anyways

 

Who knows since people might see this as a "mockery" for stating my opinion I might get banned as well.

And if I get banned for stating my opinion & telling people to look around them selfs before you start complaining about something then so be it ...

Edited November 26, 2016 by Rlaxoxo

[il_corleone]

Well said Rlaxoxo, we are our worst enemies in this really small hobby

[The Legman]

Personally i don't like airquake, but i respect those that do. I don't play it and even owning FC3 it's been years since i touch it. I have opted for realism, but it is personal. That's why i like realistic loadouts, and realistic features.

 

I wouldn't like this if this was a feature the chasseur wasn't ready for from factory. But at the end of the day it looks like a logistic decision or military organisation. They didn't strike in the chasseur, okay, so be it. The plane was ready for it, and having all the capabilities, the operator decides.

 

This is not like bringing the Mica and magically make it work with a plane that never was ready for it. It is a loadout choice that in reality didn't happen not because the plane could not, but because France did not want to do it that way.

 

So again, to me it's a mere loadout argument. If you don't like it? Don't load it on your pylons but then, don't do CAS or air strikes on the C because if we are roleplaying the french air force please be serious.

 

Getting people all triggered because "muh realism" but i swear the day the insane sustained turn rate the actual flight model has at low speed is fixed we will have a rant at the forum. But "muh realism" is nice in this case because i can out turn a flanker and get frags.

 

Let's be more realistic (sic) and understand this. They are giving us their best. And they are not inventing stuff out of nothing. And they are doing an excellent job so far.

[myHelljumper]

Rlaxoxo the problem is not stating you opinion the problem is you are not respectful when you do it.

 

Really your posts on the 2nd page was really harsh with me for no reason...

[Frostie]

I don't know man this entire topic is kinda going on my nerves to be honest ...

 

It feels so pointless to argue over this like

"Put an option to limit it only when you have ground ordinates ..."

So it wouldn't be "Abused" in A2A which if you kinda take a look at it isn't even realistic lol

 

I have different way of thinking towards this and while I do understand the concept of realism people strive for i find it funny that people seam to ignore so many examples like this one here but way worse just because they didn't know how it was built at the time and now they kinda got used to it ...

 

And now a Developer which in fact lets be honest didn't have to write this post here explaining how he did it and stuff but he did it nonetheless seam to ignited this "Fire" into some people saying that it's not realistic and that they're worried that devs are not striving for realism ...

 

D2M was planned in the design for the Aircraft ...

It has the systems onboard

It had the capability for it ...

 

But if you look at it there wasn't really any need for it since it was an intercept variant of the aircraft and look down sensors that could "Maybe" detect a IR launch wasn't worth the price or the politics of Air Combat at the time ...

So I don't see what's the bug fuss about it and WHY is this looked down upon as a non "Realistic" feature. Take a look around the sim and you'll find alot more of example of this ...

 

Missiles are crap ...

F-15 can go into space without any engine issues.

F-15 can pull 12G's all day with no structure damage what so ever

...

I mean look at DCS ECM ... it's practically crap compared to what it can really do ...

Yet everyone seams "fine" with this and it buggs me

 

I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think that's one of my strong suites when it comes to handling my way of thinking but that doesn't mean I have to agree to them.

I honestly think that bickering about this topic is completely useless but at the end of the day that's also my opinion so you don't have to agree with it ether

 

I don't know what else to say ... Is there even a point to this?

I guess not ...

 

I think I'm done trying to engage on this topic since my point on this is clear and it's obvious me saying anything won't really change much anyway plus I don't believe it can end well for me anyways

 

Who knows since people might see this as a "mockery" for stating my opinion I might get banned as well.

And if I get banned for stating my opinion & telling people to look around them selfs before you start complaining about something then so be it ...

As everyone will agree the Mirage is a fantastic module and going from strength to strength through its beta stage. It's a credit to RAZBAM and all their endeavour.

 

For me DDM on or off the Mirage is not really an issue which needs such attention, it's a minor debate hardly worthy of the time. I'm sure it would be a great addition but hardly what is representive of what is in the skies today or in the past on what is fast bordering on being a retired airframe. What is worrying though is that 3rd party companies have freedom to make their own version of DCS, be it flight model limitations, weapon performance, damage model, engine performance and additional features out of sync with the DCS ED is creating.

 

You mention missiles are crap but this is globally for all missiles, you can't create accurate representations of such classfied system behaviour but you can create a version that provided all missiles follow the same rules, then some reflective balance with RL is achieved. Unfortunately the Mirage has its own version of how missiles should behave which exceeds EDs version therefore creating its own playing field. This is the sort of tinkering outside the boundaries of DCS that worries people and I can only see it growing.

 

ECM, you could make a whole new sim to simulate this and the F-15 I believe is a 9g rated airframe at any speed so structure limit is in the region of 12-13.5g.

 

Just my cautious observation.

[Gliptal]

I doubt third parties can do whatever they want regardless of ED's decisions.

 

The missile changes you speak of are essential, since stock 530s wouldn't hit a non-manuevering target when fired from 7nm in rear aspect.

[blast]

Rlaxoxo the problem is not stating you opinion the problem is you are not respectful when you do it.

 

Really your posts on the 2nd page was really harsh with me for no reason...

 

I don't see anything disrespectful with all Rlaxoxo posts. The problem is just you, considering everyone who are not agree with your point of view to be "disrespectful".

There is absolutely no point to flaming (cliff ^^) on such a topic and using Freud quote here... Seriously :doh:

 

One more time its a game, A GAME. Most of the features on the mirage are classified and its impossible to be accurate as the reality. Do you think that real jet fighters do their training on a 50€ game? Think about it next time when you complained about realism and accuracy.

 

There will be D2M because it's realistic and it can be implemented on mirage 2000 C version.

 

End of discussion.

Edited November 26, 2016 by blast

[red_coreSix]

I doubt third parties can do whatever they want regardless of ED's decisions.

 

The missile changes you speak of are essential, since stock 530s wouldn't hit a non-manuevering target when fired from 7nm in rear aspect.

 

LOL, I can be happy if my ED AIM-120 hits a target at 7NM and that is frontal aspect.

But I agree that the 530s were way under powered but now they're in a way over powered in comparison to what ED is simulating in their missiles. They have a different drag modelling and thus different performance. That won't work in long term if every 3rd party developer can make their own versions of weapons , this is something that ED needs to provide in a somewhat realistic matter. Otherwise we'll end up with a DCS that is split by different devs following different interpretations of different sources.

 

As far as the D2M goes, having it depend on loadout restriction would be a bad choice as it's very tiring to change all missions to have that restriction. A simple option like the "INS always aligned" option would be better.

Edited November 27, 2016 by red_coreSix

[TomCatMucDe]

I doubt third parties can do whatever they want regardless of ED's decisions.

 

The missile changes you speak of are essential, since stock 530s wouldn't hit a non-manuevering target when fired from 7nm in rear aspect.

 

now that's surprising, at 7nm, the 530 wont even reach a target flying away. I fly the mirage a lot and never seen this. Do you have a track?

[Gliptal]

now that's surprising, at 7nm, the 530 wont even reach a target flying away. I fly the mirage a lot and never seen this. Do you have a track?

A very slow target, and I remember 7 but it could have been leas. Long story short, vanilla missiles were useless.

[Tilly-B]

Part of the fun of playing a simulator is the ability to find ways of using an aircraft in a way in which the typical real life user does not.

 

For example, The Ka-50 can sling load cargo in DCS, when is it ever going to do that in real life?

 

The Mirage 2000 C in the hands of the French would not be used for ground attack during conflict, given the availability of the D/N model, or the Mirage F1, or Rafale...

 

However in DCS you CAN, (and I, for one, certainly do) use the Mirage for pure AA, AG, or multirole, and as such, it makes sense for the D2M to be functional, as in DCS we are not limited by real life restrictions on such systems.

 

I look forward to the addition of the D2M, and the Belouga CBU!

Keep up the good work RAZBAM! :thumbup:

Edited November 27, 2016 by Tilly-B

[microvax]

As everyone will agree the Mirage is a fantastic module and going from strength to strength through its beta stage. It's a credit to RAZBAM and all their endeavour.

 

For me DDM on or off the Mirage is not really an issue which needs such attention, it's a minor debate hardly worthy of the time. I'm sure it would be a great addition but hardly what is representive of what is in the skies today or in the past on what is fast bordering on being a retired airframe. What is worrying though is that 3rd party companies have freedom to make their own version of DCS, be it flight model limitations, weapon performance, damage model, engine performance and additional features out of sync with the DCS ED is creating.

 

You mention missiles are crap but this is globally for all missiles, you can't create accurate representations of such classfied system behaviour but you can create a version that provided all missiles follow the same rules, then some reflective balance with RL is achieved. Unfortunately the Mirage has its own version of how missiles should behave which exceeds EDs version therefore creating its own playing field. This is the sort of tinkering outside the boundaries of DCS that worries people and I can only see it growing.

 

ECM, you could make a whole new sim to simulate this and the F-15 I believe is a 9g rated airframe at any speed so structure limit is in the region of 12-13.5g.

 

Just my cautious observation.

 

 

 

I think the spot third parties are in is really a gift. If ED wants their platform to survive, they have to react to that and ramp up the standard for whatevar a third party does better then the engine on its own.

 

AIM54 will be obviously better modelled as it looks, Mirage missiles are better modelled then ED missiles.

And that creating pressure on ED is a good thing imho.

 

For the DDM, its something which is within the limits of was capable of, never did. Same as Mig21BIS never used the grom missile and a10c on normal operation never had 6 mavs plus TGP.

Its within the limits of what is believable within a full out war scenario.

 

Mica IR would be worrying and if third parties start doing phantasy then that is something to be worried about imho.

Before that, the 342 FM and missiles are the most worrying things in DCS atm. :D

[Oceandar]

Wow, this would change the way fighting M2K in MP I believe, particularly with T/ET carrier platforms.

I support the DDM addition as long as it has capability of it just like everyone say.

This is a combat simulation anyway when every country involved would use their hardwares to its full potentiality. Just look at Syrian MiG-29A upgraded to MiG-29SM (R-77 capable) (not sure its a right example )

 

Cheers

Edited November 27, 2016 by Oceandar

[TomCatMucDe]

Wow, this would change the way fighting M2K in MP I believe, particularly with T/ET carrier platforms.

I support the DDM addition as long as it has capability of it just like everyone say.

This is a combat simulation anyway when every country involved would use their hardwares to its full potentiality. Just look at Syrian MiG-29A upgraded to MiG-29SM (R-77 capable) (not sure its a right example )

 

Cheers

 

how will this change AA in Mirage? if it did the French Airforce would have implemented it for sure. Zeus explained that it detects only missiles behind you and at a short range.

[spiddx]

Yeah the only advantage I see in A/A is if you lose sight in the merge and the bandit takes a SRAAM shot from behind and below you.

 

Nice to have but not too much of a game changer.

[Oceandar]

It would be a game changer. I have score many kills in MP against M2K with sneaking behind it and launch T/ET in Su or MiG. Now with this DDM, 27 or 29 drivers should work little bit hard.

In an unrestricted server where ER/AIM 120 are allowed its not really an issue but not in restricted server like in BF when Amraam or ER and ET aren't allowed. Face head on against uber Matra is mostly suicide.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Oceandar