New MIRAGE 2000 Flight Model

[KEAPS]

Hello, i open this thread to exchange any feeling or comment about the new M2KC flight model.

 

My Squadron and i tested the "new" 2000 during 3 hours yesterday.

 

Our first comments :

 

- Now you don't drop like a stone in turn and afterburner is efficient, at last. :thumbup:

 

- I felt like huge dead zones in the stick. The plane reacts very late or very far in the corner of the default curve settings. This means you have to go far with your stick to have a reaction of the plane.

 

Take-off is now at faster speed than before. We used to take-off at 130 knots, now it's more 160-180 which is to my opinion, too fast.

 

Braking : Very difficult to slow the jet down : even with idle gas, full airbrake, high angle of attack, the plane slows down little by little, knot by knot... We were able to let the MIRAGE at 17° angle of attack, wheels on runway at 80 knots... seems far from reality.

 

So to resume :

 

PRO: reactiveness is back in turns

 

CONS : No more efficient braking, global control of the plane is now unprecise.

 

Please MIRAGE pilots, let us know your feelings about this new FM :joystick:

 

Thank you !

Edited December 2, 2017 by KEAPS

[mvsgas]

...Please MIRAGE pilots, let us know your feelings about this new FM...

That no matter what, someone will not agree with the FM. At some point they need to lock it down and stop changing it no matter what.

[Thump]

The key thing is that they get it right based upon known information and extrapolation for information not available. Whether or not people actually "feel" like the flightmodel is accurate is not the metric I would want them to go off of. Our feelings on performance of aircraft are highly subjective, based in zero technical data or tech orders, and can be highly biased without any basis in aerodynamics/physics/etc. The main thing is that they do it the best possible without any glaring errors, and simply stand by it as the best performance simulation they are able to accomplish with the available information (i.e. a study sim, not survey).

 

As of right now, I am very happy that they have made progress in supporting the Mirage as I had placed my faith in them with its EA. Right now I'm watching to see if the support continues with an updated manual (which is being worked on), continued implementation of what has been said to be expected features, and their fixing (when required). This will dictate whether or not I buy the Harrier in EA or at all.

 

- Thump

[Riverseeker]

Take-off is now at faster speed than before. We used to take-off at 130 knots, now it's more 160-180 which is to my opinion, too fast.

 

I just tryed the insta takeoff miz: i rotated at 140, (central tank + AA setup) so are you sure about this?

Btw i landed at around 140 with half fuel and AA missiles still on my wings.

 

Aye the plane now behave differently, to me it seems less on rails and no more brick-m2kc stuff right now.

 

:thumbup:

Edited December 2, 2017 by Riverseeker

[KEAPS]

The key thing is that they get it right based upon known information and extrapolation for information not available. Whether or not people actually "feel" like the flightmodel is accurate is not the metric I would want them to go off of. Our feelings on performance of aircraft are highly subjective, based in zero technical data or tech orders, and can be highly biased without any basis in aerodynamics/physics/etc. The main thing is that they do it the best possible without any glaring errors, and simply stand by it as the best performance simulation they are able to accomplish with the available information (i.e. a study sim, not survey).

 

As of right now, I am very happy that they have made progress in supporting the Mirage as I had placed my faith in them with its EA. Right now I'm watching to see if the support continues with an updated manual (which is being worked on), continued implementation of what has been said to be expected features, and their fixing (when required). This will dictate whether or not I buy the Harrier in EA or at all.

 

- Thump

 

Yes i agree we have a lack of real infos. But we have members of the French Air Force in our squadron ( Mirage pilots and mechanics) and they claim that the flight model is not accurate, especially regarding the power ( seems to be fixed now ).

 

Regarding the take-off speed, i think it's related to the stick itself and the dead zone... i think the plane is able to take-off at 130 knots but you have to have the stick on belly !

 

Using the Hotas Warthog btw.

[Azrayen]

Hi KEAPS,

 

The former FM was far too "twichy", requiring far too much precise inputs to be really efficient. The new one is perhaps lacking a bit of "theeth", and if so that will be addressed.

But most of it is about "muscle memory". Once you'll have had a few hours on the new FM, you won't feel such a problem.

 

And if you were to re-use the former model after a long period of flying the new one, you wouldn't be able to do precise things (e.g. air-refuel) anymore.

 

 

Take-off is now at faster speed than before. We used to take-off at 130 knots, now it's more 160-180 which is to my opinion, too fast.

Nope, 130 knots is too slow, even for clean aircraft. Vlof is never < 150.

~150-180 is correct range (the actual Vlof depends on your payload (drag+weight)).

 

Of course, you'll always rotate (Vrot) earlier than taking off. :)

[KEAPS]

Hello Az :)

 

Yes i think we'll have to adapt ourselves to the "new plan", no doubt about it !

 

Now what disturbs me the most is that you cannot brake the plane easily... did you experience this ?

[Azrayen]

Now what disturbs me the most is that you cannot brake the plane easily... did you experience this ?

On the ground, yes, and it will be looked at AFAIK.

In the air, I cannot comment until I've made more flights/tests, but that's certainly on the watch-list.

[Thump]

Yes i agree we have a lack of real infos. But we have members of the French Air Force in our squadron ( Mirage pilots and mechanics) and they claim that the flight model is not accurate, especially regarding the power ( seems to be fixed now ).

 

Regarding the take-off speed, i think it's related to the stick itself and the dead zone... i think the plane is able to take-off at 130 knots but you have to have the stick on belly !

 

Using the Hotas Warthog btw.

 

I can appreciate their input and see the pilot's anecdotal history & mechanics expertise as a need for looking into the specifics of what they see as needing patching/fixing.

 

 

To quote a buddy of mine after he talked with an IL-76 driver..."If I pull back on stick and she does not take off, I put stick back and try again in a few seconds..." :D :pilotfly:

 

 

Cheers,

 

Thump

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Personally I only care about how accurate the plane behaves compared to the actual RL version. Sure at first it felt weird because we were used to the "wrong" behaviour.

Everything else it just a matter of getting used to it, and indeed building new muscle memory.

 

Especially forward movement of the stick felt strange, since you have to put in a lot of forward stick before the nose starts dropping. But then again, look down at the stick in the cockpit: the freedom of forward movement is significantly less than the freedom of rearward movement. The Warthog stick doesn't behave like that, nor any other flightstick to my knowledge...

[Knock-Knock]

I agree on the pitch 'deadzone'. You have to put in quite a lot of stick, before it even reacts. Pitch forward even more so. Id say around 10-15% travel before it starts showing a reaction. Im currently running a negative curve in pitch (thats a first), but that doesnt feel right either. I dont like it, when controls arent linear.

 

But thats the only thing bugging me. It feels great in the air now.

[trindade]

IMHO, and regarding what have been addressed on this update, we need a little fine tuning on the air brakes and wheel brakes effectiveness. But overall i'm very happy with the update. Terrific job Razbam, well done. Looking forward to the next improvments. :thumbup:

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Also enjoying the new FM, it feels MUCH better now and no more "brick" effect...turning aggresively now is amazing and Im certain to think its now probably the best dog-fighter in the whole DCS world. Also, power is now really big and after a high AoA fly by at say 90knots you can fully aft stick at full afterburner and go almost vertical, just like you would spect looking at videos and such which was impossible before. Also, slow speed fliying is AMAZING, feeling much natural, fluid and realistic with the plane responding very precisely but at the same time you can feel the "mallow" behaviour and how control surfaces are less effective very smoothly. Also, barrel rolls are GREAT!, and very close to real life videos.

 

About stick response, I also noticed it, especially when pushing the stick in negative g's, it needs almost full push to get a response but its ok for me. When pulling it also needs a bit more amount of movement but its much better imho and for people like me who use full linear response is great (I think everyone should use linear response btw) because now you have much more accuracy.

 

Only thing I think could need some observation is low drag at certain speeds but overall, its TONS better than the previous one.:thumbup:

[jojo]

The real stick moves 30mm forward and 54mm backward in pitch and +/- 12 degrees in roll.

 

So you have almost twice the travel backward than forward.

 

On the other hand, with enough speed:

- 100% stick forward = -3G

- 100% stick backward = +9G

 

And our desktop joystick usually has the same freedom of movement in all directions.

 

So I think the that's why you are disturbed by having to push forward full stick to get response.

[=Pedro=]

That no matter what, someone will not agree with the FM. At some point they need to lock it down and stop changing it no matter what.

 

Amen :thumbup:

[Davee]

Hello Az :)

 

Yes i think we'll have to adapt ourselves to the "new plan", no doubt about it !

 

Now what disturbs me the most is that you cannot brake the plane easily... did you experience this ?

 

Agree on the airbrakes. IMHO, seems they should have more responsiveness when applied.

[DirkLarien]

Yay i am no longer being overtaken anymore by frogfoots :-B

The POWER of engine with a seat and small wings is back !

Not only it feels better.... that feeling like you were playing a game (that computer handling) its gone. Also i love the shaking in high speed :-)

 

I like it...to a point i have a sneaking feeling mirages will be bit OP in multi-player now.

 

I agree the airbrakes are not as effective as they used to ....but it could be that i was just used to fly to base at mach 1 and slam the brakes just before the landing.

Edited December 2, 2017 by DirkLarien

[Verde]

It is a glider now, dont know how true is that it just glides fore er, doesnt seem right for delta even at low speeds, drag is too low as far as i can see that.

[jaguara5]

 

Please MIRAGE pilots, let us know your feelings about this new FM :joystick:

 

Thank you !

 

Yes i agree we have a lack of real infos. But we have members of the French Air Force in our squadron ( Mirage pilots and mechanics) and they claim that the flight model is not accurate, especially regarding the power ( seems to be fixed now ).

 

.

 

Well, if you have access to real guys you should ask them how they feel about the FM (and share the infos with us). By the way, they told that the previous or that the current FM is incorrect?

From my conversations with real M2K pilots they told me 1) the plane has excellent low speed flying characteristics, with no vibrations and the ability to be flown at 100 kts, which seems to be correct modeled Edit- well not, se later post - . 2) During landing the throttle is slowly retarded at 50 feet and 2 -3 small pitch up made to flare the aircraft, which seems also to be correct modeled. In the previous FM (provided that the approach has been flown at the correct AoA), this would smash the aircraft into the ground, due to excessive drag / speed drop. Correct throttle retard then was at 15- 20 feet. So this aspect, seems to be improved. 3) The airplane can, due the high instantaneous turn rate, outturn the F-16 (and so the F-15 which in our case has a PFM), at a speed cost of course . Valid tactic at low altitudes is a 1 circle fight + a magic kill after the head on pass (if the pilot can shoot before the Rmin). At higher altitudes the situation is different , and a sustained turn with 470kts is preferred (because the f-16 can in that regiment sustain the speed much better than the mirage). I'm waiting to evaluate the maneuverability against human players when the Just Dogfight server is compatible with 1.5.8., against AI's we are now unbeatable.

 

From f-16 net: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=411&sid=fcdf43b4ffb3156ab9db2397ca12fdf4

'' I've flown in the mirage 2000, and found it to have a good turn, but VERY poor sustainable energy and rate ''. Can't say that the sustainable energy is ''VERY poor'' now.

With the new FM, a max g/ full stick deflection 180 deg. turn at 5.000 / 10.000 feet, performed with 400 kts initial speed, 100% fuel and no external stores, and he boresight cross placed at the horizon line (90' bank) ends up at 240kts (and ~400 feet lower). Here , the real guys must confirm the validity of the numbers.

Edit- just tested the old FM in 2.1, the turn ended with 150 kts, which is obvious to low.

Otherwise, the (already reported) ''gliding effect'' seems to my noob eye problematic (given also an IRCM advantage in head on engagements, since we can longer fly at idle thrust to reduce the ir signature without loosing much speed).

Edited December 3, 2017 by jaguara5

[ViFF]

my first impression of the FM: I am doing crazy maneuvers at less then 120 kts and 32 AoA and the airplane it is not falling out of the sky...

 

Mirage updated FM = UFO

[Redglyph]

That feels very weird.

 

Why is there such a profound change after all this time?

 

And regarding the long stick course forward, if the real stick has a shorter course, wouldn't that be better to simply saturate the pitch after half its course forward instead?

[jaguara5]

After more testing, indeed the low speed model is terribly wrong.

With full AB 90' bank, full aft stick, I couldn't drop the speed below 163 kts.

This was with 50 % internal fuel. With 100 % fuel under the same conditions, speed drops only to 159 kts

If I perform the turn in a 20 deg. dive, the speed won't drop under 200kts!

LastMissionTrack.trk

Edited December 3, 2017 by jaguara5

[Dagger71]

What release version is this FM update?????

[trindade]

What release version is this FM update?????

 

It's the latest, Beta only.

[tflash]

It's funny: I was enjoying the new Harrier, when I thought let's fire up again this excellent Mirage from Razbam!

 

I really thought something was terribly wrong with my HOTAS mapping, as the plane responded dramatically different to inputs as I was used to.

 

It's only then that I saw this thread. Explains everything :) I must say second time I fly I already didn't bother anymore, it's just that first feel that is very disorienting.