So about the M2000 FM and current state...

[Johnny Dioxin]

Well, well, we are salty and determined to try and put people down, aren't we? Much like those I was referring to.

 

The point I was making - pretty obvious really, but difficult for large egoes to comprehend, no doubt, is that it's no good saying that someone with experience of said aircraft should come here and state that an FM is accurate or not - or give any other opinions, because as the detractors have so clearly demonstrated, they would be ignored, told they are not telling it "how it is" or similarly made out to be full of it.

As you have made a perfect example of.

 

Like I said - I was making a point - a valid one, as you have confirmed even though you are trying to put me down about it (funny how much that happens when you read around these supposedly friendly forums and oh yes - it's because people care so much about the sim) and that's all. because I refuse to get into pathetic arguments about who has the largest privates, or I know more than you.

 

Have a nice day - I 'll be unsubbing from this thread because I'll be too busy enjoying myself in my Mirage 2000C, amongst other modules ;)

 

After all, DCS World is a game and is made solely for entertainment.

[TLTeo]

:doh:

 

 

I'm not dissing you guys, quite the opposite. I'm dissing people that claim a FM is wrong because "it's common sense and I took a math class in college".

[OverStratos]

Brixmis, I advice you to not get this too straight to the heart as this trend will increase instead of diminish over time. While I´m pretty serious in relation to aircraft performance and systems rendition, I actually enjoy the discussions and I love as much proving people wrong(who doesn´t:D) as being corrected in things I´m wrong. That´s one part of the learning process.

I just have to be clear about one thing, all developers in DCS are constantly trying to increase the realism level all the time, based on new info and off course user feedback. There´s no such thing as abandoned modules and I think the events in the last months prove that.

[OverStratos]

I'm not dissing you guys, quite the opposite. I'm dissing people that claim a FM is wrong because "it's common sense and I took a math class in college".

Sorry, maybe I didn´t use the correct emoji. I was kind of trying to represent an "Oh my God you´re right!" in a comical way:D

[sedenion]

I'm not dissing you guys, quite the opposite. I'm dissing people that claim a FM is wrong because "it's common sense and I took a math class in college".

 

By past, a similar situation occured with more obvious FM problem, right here in this forum, and some people with "no knowlege" but with logical and common sens, was saying something was wrong. And others, stayed in their view that "the FM is okay"... Until publicly Razbam admit that, yes, indeed, there were a problem.

 

I am not saying we are in the exact same situation, I only say that, the "Duning Kruger" argument is almost the same as "I fly a F-106 30 years ago so I know how a delta-wing Mirage 2000 fly". Sometimes, common sens, usual logic, observation and college math can be pretty good tools.

[TLTeo]

Occasionally, yes. Most of the time, no.

 

 

The Mig-19 supercruising and sustaining turns better than an Eagle is a good example of the former. People in this thread claiming that the Mirage FM is bad because when at idle throttle their jet falls out of the sky faster than other jets being is a good example of the latter.

[Harlikwin]

Pretty much sums up most <strikethrough>FM</strikethrough> discussions

 

Fixed it for ya :megalol:

[Mars Exulte]

Well, well, we are salty and determined to try and put people down, aren't we? Much like those I was referring to.

 

The point I was making - pretty obvious really, but difficult for large egoes to comprehend, no doubt, is that it's no good saying that someone with experience of said aircraft should come here and state that an FM is accurate or not - or give any other opinions, because as the detractors have so clearly demonstrated, they would be ignored, told they are not telling it "how it is" or similarly made out to be full of it.

As you have made a perfect example of.

 

Like I said - I was making a point - a valid one, as you have confirmed even though you are trying to put me down about it (funny how much that happens when you read around these supposedly friendly forums and oh yes - it's because people care so much about the sim) and that's all. because I refuse to get into pathetic arguments about who has the largest privates, or I know more than you.

 

Have a nice day - I 'll be unsubbing from this thread because I'll be too busy enjoying myself in my Mirage 2000C, amongst other modules ;)

 

After all, DCS World is a game and is made solely for entertainment.

 

Pilots views ARE valuable as a starting point, but their views need to be VERIFIABLE. Simply saying ''this is wrong because I know'' is irrelevant. Most the devs recruit former pilots to test their stuff during dev, too. I have personally witnessed former pilots of an aircraft disagreeing about whether or not it's right. Thus emphaaising my point, EXPERIENCE IS VALUABLE, but you need CORROBORATING EVIDENCE besides just your word. It is BOTH components that make a critique valuable.

 

Otherwise it's just some dude with a chip on his shoulder because his word isn't treated as God's own.

[malcheus]

I think pilot's views are interesting and valuable, but I also don't think they can be seen as a ground truth.

Pilots can perceive G-forces in all axes, simmers cannot and in most cases only have G-force numbers on one axis.

For example while us simmers can happily pull the stick and crank out the maximum G's that the flight model allows, a pilot would feel rather inclined to widen his turn at some point to prevent going to sleep. In other words there are situations in the sim that real pilots never or rarely encounter.

 

To get an accurate flight model, one would have to get their hands on technical documents and flight recorder data. Depending on how many factors are logged one can start modeling:

At barometric pressure A with initial velocity B engine thrust C aircraft weight D and climb rate E and G G's (pun intended) the aircraft turns X degrees per second and it's velocity changes Y m/s.

 

The complexity lies in that variables A, B, C, D, E, F and G all influence the outcome X and Y in a different manner, and that X and Y in turn influence these variables.

So one would need a tremendous amount of data to about real life behaviour where all of these variables (and probably many more) are logged.

 

Pilots also cannot remember all of these parameters and tell a modeller whether his model is correct or not, they can only tell whether it feels ok.

[jaguara5]

Aboout the slow speed handling.

Was reading an interesting article describing in deetail a backseat flight in a FAF Mirage 2000-5 with Dassault test pilot Eric Gerard.

They took off with full internal fuel + i centerline tank (by the way bingo value was set to 800). After take off , climbing at 35K and completing a first engagement (so some fuel was already burnt) they descented ''at low altitude'' flying with 160 kts, 90 degr bank for a 2,5 g turn 28 AoA. Then they reversed to the left and again to the right performing scissor turns. During these turns the speed varied between 160 - 120 kts

Edited December 10, 2019 by jaguara5

[PeneCruz]

interestingly in 30 years of flying jets I haven't found a simulator that fly's like the real aircraft. The problem is you cant create the dynamic environment that exists in the atmosphere. Even the best commercial simulators produce canned representation. simulators are really procedures trainers.

Never flown the Mirage 2000 however I doubt it fly's like this when you pulling G and bleeding speed. I always laugh when someone says the pilot view is not accurate as they don't have the data. Yeah well go and fly the aircraft then get back to me :)

[falcon_120]

Well pilots are human beings, as such they are prone to errors caused by memory, perception, personal way of flying... data is data.

 

I have more than 2000hrs in my car, yet i would not argue against the manufacturer engineers empirical data regarding acceleration, braking distance or unrefueling range values...

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[jojo]

interestingly in 30 years of flying jets I haven't found a simulator that fly's like the real aircraft. The problem is you cant create the dynamic environment that exists in the atmosphere. Even the best commercial simulators produce canned representation. simulators are really procedures trainers.

Never flown the Mirage 2000 however I doubt it fly's like this when you pulling G and bleeding speed. I always laugh when someone says the pilot view is not accurate as they don't have the data. Yeah well go and fly the aircraft then get back to me :)

 

Sorry, but I don’t understand what are doubting about ?

Do you think it isn’t bleeding enough speed or too much ?

Edited December 12, 2019 by jojo

[jaguara5]

This is a quick scissor turns test.

With 100 % internal fuel + an (empty) external centerline tank starting with 160 kts - 6.000 ft, i can barely drop the speed below 160. Speed varies between ~155 - 170 kts

mirage 2000 low speed test.trk

[Fri13]

I have more than 2000hrs in my car, yet i would not argue against the manufacturer engineers empirical data regarding acceleration, braking distance or unrefueling range values...

 

By the specs my car has max kilometers per full tank a 700km in 80km/h road. But I can extend that to 890km easily, and even to 950km if I start to drive economically by using few tricks.

 

A lot data can be created for braking distance by specific tires, road conditions etc, but those are always flexiblen and only for those specific conditions, and driver.

 

Data is data, but it as well depends from user. Some things are just engineered without any reserve to them, like wings G loading.

[PeneCruz]

Sorry, but I don’t understand what are doubting about ?

Do you think it isn’t bleeding enough speed or too much ?

 

Yes, the rate of speed decay seems to remain constant despite the loss of G capability. As the the aircraft loses energy the ability to maintain G decreases the amount of induced drag should also decrease and the speed decay should reduce. The FBW would also impact this.

[myHelljumper]

Yes, the rate of speed decay seems to remain constant despite the loss of G capability. As the the aircraft loses energy the ability to maintain G decreases the amount of induced drag should also decrease and the speed decay should reduce. The FBW would also impact this.

 

But in the case of the 2000, isn't the aircraft able to maintain the commanded G ? Thanks to its relaxed stability.

 

Honest question.

[jojo]

But in the case of the 2000, isn't the aircraft able to maintain the commanded G ? Thanks to its relaxed stability.

 

Honest question.

 

For a given speed and maximum thrust you can sustain a certain amount of G and turn rate, FBW or not.

How much exactly is the spicy question...

[myHelljumper]

For a given speed and maximum thrust you can sustain a certain amount of G and turn rate, FBW or not.

How much exactly is the spicy question...

 

Of course, I was not implying that, just that the plane can maintain the commanded G all the way to 300kts, meaning that you will have a higher speed reduction than in other aircrafts that does not maintain 9G while decreasing speed.

[jojo]

I don't think anyone is complaining about behavior above corner speed. :smilewink:

 

Anyway, recently a Matbog (building himself a very nice Mirage cockpit) had the opportunity to visit EC 2/5 at Orange AB and to try the simulator.

He found that the stick answer was very close to what we have in DCS.

 

So far, AdA pilot are happy, and DCS player trying the simulator find it's about the same.

 

So I guess there is no obvious thing wrong.