Mirage 2000 performances

[gavagai]

I'm not saying it is correct (I agree it is very suspicious). But I know CptSmiley will get to it. Razbam has done a really good job with the M2K module and their communication with customers is #1.

[Azrayen]

I thought we already heard from Cpt Smiley that the high AoA drag of the M2K could be too high...

Indeed.

So a little patience is in order IMO :)

 

@ Fox One, you're entitled to your opinion, but writing harsh comments about people without knowing the whole story is probably not getting anyone towards a better mood, don't you think?

[Hamilton]

" (by creating FM with the ultimate goal to fit with "data charts", you easily forget how the aircraft should fly)

 

 

Exactly Sedenion,wel said! It happens a lot with flightsim developers nowadays...

[baltic_dragon]

Hey guys!

 

Unfortunately RAZBAM is having internet connection problems so I am posting this on their behalf:

 

"We have just become aware of the problems with the M-2000C FM. We will review the issue and correct it ASAP so it will be available on the next update".

[laumaya]

Hey guys!

 

Unfortunately RAZBAM is having internet connection problems so I am posting this on their behalf:

 

"We have just become aware of the problems with the M-2000C FM. We will review the issue and correct it ASAP so it will be available on the next update".

 

Good news :thumbup:

[Davee]

Just become aware??

 

What about CptSmiley's comments that he is on it from awhile back and the thread discussions and arguments?

 

Doesn't make sense to me.

[microvax]

Hi sedenion, this is exactly what happened in this situation. We were required to make adjustments to a given flight profile to make performance charts in steady state conditions more correct. In doing that, adjustments to the dynamic behavior (rate and acceleration coefficients that provide a good "feel") were not corrected adjusted accordingly. This resulted in a doubling up effect of the drag build up when both in a steady state turn rate and producing a change in turn rate that was unintended, this is compounded exponentially at much higher alpha obviously.

 

I have some internal changes that have been pending for a while but want to get them fully fleshed out before sending them out. The goal is to have something for you all in the next update the improves this behavior.

 

I'm sorry for those that are currently unsatisfied with the situation and/or my capabilities but the updates will continue until moral improves. I'm also sorry for the back and forth we've gone through on the FM evolution for the M-2000C, it certainly isn't ideal but it has been a pleasure working with knowledgeable members of the community. I fully understand that you all paid for a quality product and I'll keep working on it to get it there no matter the bumps in the road.

Give that man a medal.

 

Thx for the continued work :)

[Tripleinside]

+1 !

thanks for the update CptSmiley, i understand now where it's coming from, and i'm relieved the next update will fix the issue... :)

[dannyq8]

Hi sedenion, this is exactly what happened in this situation. We were required to make adjustments to a given flight profile to make performance charts in steady state conditions more correct. In doing that, adjustments to the dynamic behavior (rate and acceleration coefficients that provide a good "feel") were not corrected adjusted accordingly. This resulted in a doubling up effect of the drag build up when both in a steady state turn rate and producing a change in turn rate that was unintended, this is compounded exponentially at much higher alpha obviously.

 

I have some internal changes that have been pending for a while but want to get them fully fleshed out before sending them out. The goal is to have something for you all in the next update the improves this behavior.

 

I'm sorry for those that are currently unsatisfied with the situation and/or my capabilities but the updates will continue until moral improves. I'm also sorry for the back and forth we've gone through on the FM evolution for the M-2000C, it certainly isn't ideal but it has been a pleasure working with knowledgeable members of the community. I fully understand that you all paid for a quality product and I'll keep working on it to get it there no matter the bumps in the road.

 

Bravo, this is the open and honest reply that I really appreciate from developers, rather than hiding behind a veil of secrecy because some of us said "nasty" things about you.

 

This is why I will continue to support RAZBAM by buying your modules as soon as they are available.

 

Keep up the good work :thumbup:

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I'm sorry for those that are currently unsatisfied with the situation and/or my capabilities but the updates will continue until moral improves. I'm also sorry for the back and forth we've gone through on the FM evolution for the M-2000C, it certainly isn't ideal but it has been a pleasure working with knowledgeable members of the community. I fully understand that you all paid for a quality product and I'll keep working on it to get it there no matter the bumps in the road.

I can't even begin to grasp the complexity of the code you have to work with. Not only to deliver a proper flight model for a module when it is yet to be released, but even more so when making adjustments after release without unintentionally messing up something else.

 

Keep up the good work, and thank you for that explanation! :thumbup:

[sedenion]

Hi sedenion, this is exactly what happened in this situation. We were required to make adjustments to a given flight profile to make performance charts in steady state conditions more correct. In doing that, adjustments to the dynamic behavior (rate and acceleration coefficients that provide a good "feel") were not corrected adjusted accordingly. This resulted in a doubling up effect of the drag build up when both in a steady state turn rate and producing a change in turn rate that was unintended, this is compounded exponentially at much higher alpha obviously.

 

As my grandfather said: better, is the enemy of good. :smilewink:

 

maybe I am wrong, but i think we can't really have an FM that strictly fit with data charts while being close to the real aircraft behavior. Aerodynamic is a too complex things to make this acheivable in a generical simulator. Only an approximation, a good deal between data charts and aircraft global behavior, can be achieved. My two cents :)

[Dehuman]

Modules made by ED and Belsimtek never went early access with such visible from the Moon flight model inaccuracies.

 

Aside from this not quite being correct, ED and BST have more experience (in both time and quantity) making FM's for DCS than all the third parties combined, they also have the benefit of having access to the core game code.

 

Frankly I'd be shocked if they weren't as good at it as they are at this point in time.

 

Razbam, and in fact all of the third party devs (kind of excluding Heatblur) only have one module released. Few people can master something the first time they do it, but they only get better.

 

ED also have the luxury of being able to spend the better half of a decade working on a module.

[lemoen]

As my grandfather said: better, is the enemy of good. :smilewink:

 

maybe I am wrong, but i think we can't really have an FM that strictly fit with data charts while being close to the real aircraft behavior. Aerodynamic is a too complex things to make this acheivable in a generical simulator. Only an approximation, a good deal between data charts and aircraft global behavior, can be achieved. My two cents :)

 

The aerodynamics code is custom for this aircraft and the data charts may have errors on them (maybe they came from another simulation or whatever). So, given enough correct data, Razbam will be able to get the M2000 close enough to the real thing for us to be happy with it.

[OnlyforDCS]

Aside from this not quite being correct, ED and BST have more experience (in both time and quantity) making FM's for DCS than all the third parties combined, they also have the benefit of having access to the core game code.

 

 

This. Take note that the only modules that have AFM/PFM coding have come from Eagle Dynamics & Belsimtek.

 

ED have stated that EFM coding can come close, but since it's done from scratch by each third party developer it will take a lot of time, for it to get there.

 

Cpt. Smiley is one of the most open developers out there (which fits Razbam's profile) and the plane in all of its iterations never felt "fake" in flight. Which means that the Mirage might be a bit of a brick right now, but at least it feels like a proper flying brick. :lol:

 

I have no doubt in my mind that Razbam will get there. Maybe one or two other third parties too.

[Sarge55]

Keep up the good work Cap'

 

This made me chuckle "but the updates will continue until moral improves" :thumbup:

[Jugdriver]

Bravo, this is the open and honest reply that I really appreciate from developers, rather than hiding behind a veil of secrecy because some of us said "nasty" things about you.

 

This is why I will continue to support RAZBAM by buying your modules as soon as they are available.

 

Keep up the good work :thumbup:

 

+1!

 

JD

AKA_MattE

[Hamilton]

I fully understand that you all paid for a quality product and I'll keep working on it to get it there no matter the bumps in the road.

 

Thank you so much for the explanation! It´s very important for us.:thumbup:

[zero]

Thrust:

 

If you check thrust vs weight, you can probably calculate the correct theoretical value vs sim value in vertical climb. (no alpha drag). Compare speed drop/time in both cases. Compensate a qualified guess on general drag.

 

If you pay for an aircraft , it must be correct as much as possible. A2A delivers 100% in their Accusim range. That is why you see only general aviation aircraft in their store. They test them, fly them with sensors installed for max data collection.

 

They have no intention for supersonic aircraft. It takes years to study the aerodynamics, and the business will go bankrupt. (Ref director) It must 100% or nothing.

 

That is why I accept less than perfect aircraft in DCS. It is impossible get it perfect for $60.-

 

Checking the manual - there is a critical range under 100 knots. I find it impossible to fly under 106.

Who cares? Not me. Much better to put time and resources to tweak normal operation range.

 

A pilot told me that a full movement Multi million dollar Boeing simulator is very close to real flying, but still it is not the same as real flying.

 

IMO M2000 is a great plane as is.

:thumbup:

[sunski34]

CptSmiley wrote :

I'm sorry for those that are currently unsatisfied with the situation and/or my capabilities but the updates will continue until moral improves. I'm also sorry for the back and forth we've gone through on the FM evolution for the M-2000C, it certainly isn't ideal but it has been a pleasure working with knowledgeable members of the community. I fully understand that you all paid for a quality product and I'll keep working on it to get it there no matter the bumps in the road.

 

 

Thank you for those informations.... :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[gavagai]

 

IMO M2000 is a great plane as is.

:thumbup:

 

Fortunately, Razbam disagrees with you.:music_whistling:

[sedenion]

Fortunately, Razbam disagrees with you.:music_whistling:

 

Unfortunately, it seem a large part of the community did'nt even noticed something was wrong with the FM, while the other part was afraid to complaint because they are tired to ear always the same arguments "What are your data ?/This is because delta wing/This is realistic you are just dumb/bad pilot/need practice" from the first part... I have to admit i am more angry against some part of the community than against Razbam.

[zero]

Fortunately, Razbam disagrees with you.:music_whistling:

 

Good. Appreciate that.

Good things will happen in the future.

 

Now I just have fun alone in sky. Practice turn & burn, landings. Watch it in F3 flyby.

Started practice lock on bomber targets, and assign HOTAS buttons to radar.

Next schedule is to make spare parts of them.

 

Maybe I will discover design weakness in more serious dogfights?

[sedenion]

Maybe I will discover design weakness in more serious dogfights?

 

Yes, except if you are accustomed to dogfight aboard the A-10 or Su-25...

[Davee]

Unfortunately, it seem a large part of the community did'nt even noticed something was wrong with the FM, while the other part was afraid to complaint because they are tired to ear always the same arguments "What are your data ?/This is because delta wing/This is realistic you are just dumb/bad pilot/need practice" from the first part... I have to admit i am more angry against some part of the community than against Razbam.

 

+1

[laumaya]

I really don't want to hear the "it's a delta/high drag" lecture. Yes it's a delta but not like a Mirage III delta. With the Mirage III performing slow speed/high AOA flight the elevons would be deflected upwards at a pretty considerable angle, effectively dumping lift of the platform and greatly increasing trim drag. Mirage 2000 is a relaxed static stability delta. Performing slow speed/high AOA flight the elevons are close to neutral or even deflected slightly downwards, further increasing lift, as you can clearly see here

 

+1000