Is it worth to purchase?

[nessuno0505]

I'm thinking about purchasing m2000c with christmas sales, but I'd like to ask some information to whom already fly it. Is it really worth? I already own these modules:

A-10C

Ka-50

L-39

FC3

Combined Arms

- Is m2000c the same level of complexity and detail as A-10C and Ka-50?

I've read that not all the systems are fully developed and some of them are still in progress, but now m2000c is no more in beta, so it should be quite complete; what is still missing?

- What about the manual? I know an updated manual with all the latest improvements is still in development, maybe should I wait until this updated manual is complete? A-10C for example is nearly impossible to learn without a manual, what about m2000c? Are there at least updated interactive training missions?

- I know m2000c development slowed down due to the av-8b; I play only stable version of dcs and I'd prefer to see one finished project instead of more started projects but none fully developed.

- I'm not so much interested in A-A combat, I greatly prefer A-G, but what attracts me about m2000c is the possibility to fly a clickable supersonic jet with delta wings... to fly it at low altitude should be very exciting. Surely I'll purchase f/a-18 when available, but in the meanwhile is m2000c a good alternative?

[jojo]

I don't think the M-2000C is for you.

 

Complexity: IRL, the Mirage 2000C RDI is mainly an interceptor, built with QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) in mind. It's designed to ease the pilot workload as much as possible (especially through extensive use of AP).

Even if the module was fully complete, it would remain more simple from systems point of view than A-10C or Ka-50.

 

Weapon system:

- AA: the main weapon is Super 530D Fox 1 missile (SARH = Semi Active Radar Homming). It doesn't have the longest range, but within its range it can be quite deadly well used. Fox 1 have some limitations, no matter what the module (AIM-7M on F-15C, R-27(E)R on Mig 29 & Su 27).

AA systems need a few polishing work but is the most advanced.

 

- AG: it's a secondary mission for this fighter. When it was a front line fighter AG was 15% of the training time for pilots.

You can carry dumb bombs, rockets, GBU-12 => but you need external designation (A-10C, AV-8B Harrier, F/A-18 Hornet...).

GBU-16 and GBU-24 are available but bugged (from what I read) and these are ED bombs.

No targeting pod on M-2000C, and apart from GBU-XX no smart AG weapon.

The AG part is the one who still need the more work.

 

Sure the Mirage 2000 is fast at all altitudes.

But from AG point of view, I think the early AV-8B Harrier can already do all the M-2000C does and more (AGM-65 maverick, Sidearm ARM missile, nav FLIR, targeting pod will be functional soon..), slower than M-2000C, but faster than A-10C.

 

You've been warned. Yes it can do AG, but it's secondary task with late 80' weapon system.

The main "sensor" in AG are navigation INS system and radar ranging.

On the other hand, if you want to try AA, it's realistic but not overly complex.

 

Viewed by British fighter pilot:

https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

Edited December 23, 2017 by jojo

[QuiGon]

I have to agree with jojo: The M2000 doesn't seem to fit your preferences. It's an interceptor/fighter and its A-G capabilities are somewhat limited.

- I'm not so much interested in A-A combat, I greatly prefer A-G, but what attracts me about m2000c is the possibility to fly a clickable supersonic jet with delta wings... to fly it at low altitude should be very exciting. Surely I'll purchase f/a-18 when available, but in the meanwhile is m2000c a good alternative?

This makes me think, that the AJS-37 Viggen would be a perfect fit for you, as it is a fully clickable, delta wing, supersonic, low level strike aircaft. ;)

It also is the only aircraft in DCS so far that features a ground mapping radar.

Edited December 23, 2017 by QuiGon

[myHelljumper]

This makes me think, that the AJS-37 Viggen would be a perfect fit for you

 

Yup, go for the Viggen.

[nessuno0505]

Ok, maybe I should not have written "I prefer A-G", it is obvious that a pure interceptor like the m2000c is not suited against ground targets. Yes it's true, I enjoy a lot more using targeting pod or mavericks than shooting an aim-120 from a long range to a symbol on a screen / beeing shot down by a missile I can barely see incoming. In addition I use VR and spotting AA targets from a distance is quite difficult, while AG targets are more easy to achieve, at least with the A-10c (jtac and TGP help).The fact is that, even if I'm not very proficient in using the F-15c or Su-27 FC3 AA radars, merely flying an F-15 is a lot more fun than flying an A-10! So my idea was to give another chance to an A-A plane, trying a clickable one. Anyway, maybe the Viggen could be a better option, since it is supersonic, delta wing (with canard too), low level and clickable. But it is still early access, so I imagine it will be less developed than the m2000c (which remains the only 4th gen fighter fully clickable till the f/a-18 will come). Maybe I'll save money for when f/a-18 will be out or av-8b (another very interesting model) will be out of early access...

Edited December 24, 2017 by nessuno0505

[nessuno0505]

Fox 1 have some limitations, no matter what the module (AIM-7M on F-15C, R-27(E)R on Mig 29 & Su 27)

 

You mean all semi-active radar guided AA missiles are in a certain way "bugged" in DCS? Can you explain this better, please?

[QuiGon]

But it is still early access, so I imagine it will be less developed than the m2000c (which remains the only 4th gen fighter fully clickable till the f/a-18 will come). Maybe I'll save money for when f/a-18 will be out or av-8b (another very interesting model) will be out of early access...

It's really not less developed than the M2000. It is feature complete for almost a year now and only a few minor bugs remain but that is also the case with the M2000. The Viggen is also the highest quality module in DCS so far regarding graphics, sound and systems modeling. It's very immersive and does a great job to make you feel like in a Cold War plane, especially in VR.

But it's a very demanding airframe and not as easy as an A-10C.

 

You mean all semi-active radar guided AA missiles are in a certain way "bugged" in DCS? Can you explain this better, please?

No, not bugged. I think he just means that they are limited in A-A combat when fighting aircraft equipped with active radar missiles like the F-15.

[jojo]

Yes, this is what I meant. Appart from some DCS World imperfections here and there, real world Fox 1 limitations are there. Shooting the missile isn't the end of the story.

 

AIM-120 have their weak spot too. That's the game, exploit your strong point and enemy weak points.

 

I don't have Viggen, but I have headache each time I read guys talking about its nav/ weapon system. It seems to have been done right. But maybe not for everyone taste, very specific technology of the time. Try to find the manual before you buy it, just to be sure it's for you.

Edited December 24, 2017 by jojo

[QuiGon]

I don't have Viggen, but I have headache each time I read guys talking about its nav/ weapon system. It seems to have been done right. But maybe not for everyone taste, very specific technology of the time. Try to find the manual before you buy it, just to be sure it's for you.

 

Yes, that's pretty much on point. It's a very interesting system and a lot of fun to use if you are into these kind of technology but it requires some work to do. But in the end it's not much different than the inertial navigation system the Mirage uses.

[baltic_dragon]

I'm thinking about purchasing m2000c with christmas sales, but I'd like to ask some information to whom already fly it. Is it really worth? I already own these modules:

A-10C

Ka-50

L-39

FC3

Combined Arms

- Is m2000c the same level of complexity and detail as A-10C and Ka-50?

I've read that not all the systems are fully developed and some of them are still in progress, but now m2000c is no more in beta, so it should be quite complete; what is still missing?

- What about the manual? I know an updated manual with all the latest improvements is still in development, maybe should I wait until this updated manual is complete? A-10C for example is nearly impossible to learn without a manual, what about m2000c? Are there at least updated interactive training missions?

- I know m2000c development slowed down due to the av-8b; I play only stable version of dcs and I'd prefer to see one finished project instead of more started projects but none fully developed.

- I'm not so much interested in A-A combat, I greatly prefer A-G, but what attracts me about m2000c is the possibility to fly a clickable supersonic jet with delta wings... to fly it at low altitude should be very exciting. Surely I'll purchase f/a-18 when available, but in the meanwhile is m2000c a good alternative?

 

A new manual should be ready in around one month and there are 10 interactive and fully voiced over training missions. Plus the campaign does cover a lot of things from the training too.

[jojo]

My 2 cents:

- If you want to do AG with a faster plane than A-10C waiting for the Hornet: go for AV-8B Harrier. On top of that, STOVL operations will be plenty fun and already working great.

- If you're having fun in AA with F-15C and want to go a little more in depth into system management, bullseye messages use: go for M-2000C but be aware of Fox 1 constraints. The plane is fast, nimble and fun to fly. Systems aren't a burden to use. You can also do a little AG as side job.

[QuiGon]

I concur with the additional recommendation of the Viggen as an already available and finished module. The Harrier probably fits your preferences very well, but it's very much work in progress atm with a lot of features missing. The Hornet will probably fulfill all your wishes better than any other airframe, once available which will still take some time.

The Mirage on the other hand, is something I would only recommend, if you really want to get into the A-A business. Then it's a great choice of course, as it is currently the only full fidelity 4th gen fighter available in DCS atm.

[some1]

Viggen is not finished. It is still in beta and roughly the same shape as M-2000 is now.

[QuiGon]

Viggen is not finished. It is still in beta and roughly the same shape as M-2000 is now.

Well, pretty much none of the DCS modules is really finished, meaning that no work has to be done on it anymore. Even the KA-50 which is the oldest module in DCS needs some work regarding lighting atm. So I should have said "feature complete", like in my first post in this thread, instead of "finished".

[nessuno0505]

I've read some of the Viggen manual; I think I could enjoy low level fast strike missions, nevertheless the cockpit is in swedish only and the Viggen is not a so much attractive model by itself... I mean, a swedish strike fighter used only by swedish aviaton? If it was a tornado ids, I mean, more or less the same type of missions but a plane with a much bigger appeal! So maybe I'll stand by for now. Av-8b and f/a-18 are on my wishlist, but the latter is not yet available and the former is still too far behind in development (and full-price). So maybe to save money and wait is the better option.

[Vatikus]

based on what you had written, i would go for viggen as it offers different experience as A10... but if that's not what you want, then it is indeed best to wait.

[some1]

Well, pretty much none of the DCS modules is really finished, meaning that no work has to be done on it anymore. Even the KA-50 which is the oldest module in DCS needs some work regarding lighting atm. So I should have said "feature complete", like in my first post in this thread, instead of "finished".

 

Viggen is not feature complete. The manual is incomplete, the training missions are missing, there are no campaigns, the bugs are more severe and obvious than in Ka-50. Heatblur guys are the first to admit it and they still are in active development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194358

 

That being said, it is still a good product, definitely worth purchase.

[QuiGon]

Viggen is not feature complete. The manual is incomplete, the training missions are missing, there are no campaigns, the bugs are more severe and obvious than in Ka-50. Heatblur guys are the first to admit it and they still are in active development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194358

 

That being said, it is still a good product, definitely worth purchase.

Well, same thing with the Mirage, which also still has severe bugs and an incomplete manual.

[nessuno0505]

Viggen is not feature complete. The manual is incomplete, the training missions are missing, there are no campaigns, the bugs are more severe and obvious than in Ka-50. Heatblur guys are the first to admit it and they still are in active development: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194358

 

That being said, it is still a good product, definitely worth purchase.

 

Well, I have to admit the Viggen is tempting me a lot, the presentation video on DCS site makes you want to fly it; nevertheless, if it is so much in development as you say, I think I'll wait, at least for when there will be a full manual and some training missions, since I'm not tired yet of the a-10c (I think there will be always something new to learn about the a-10c, unless you are a real warthog pilot!).

Edited December 28, 2017 by nessuno0505

[unknown]

...the training missions are missing...

But there are voiced over interactive training missions for the Viggen.