Mirage F1 project update

[ThorBrasil]

[jurinko]

Ready.

[Dustband]

No campaign included?

[TLTeo]

It's pretty standard for modules to not have a campaign at release tbh

[Hiob]

22 minutes ago, jurinko said:

Ready.

You must have much better eyes than me! 

[Tango3B]

Dear Aerges Team, you made me very happy today. The Mirage F1 is, apart from the F-4, THE cold war module I always wanted to fly in DCS and now it is finally going to happen. I saw the F1 at an airshow back in the 80s when I still was a kid and I remember I was immediately amazed by its sleek and sexy appearance. And this holds true until today. The F1 has something to it which only the F-4 and the F-16 manage to awaken in me. Remember back in December ´21 when I said I expect the F1 to be released in July ´22? Well, apparently I was dead right. Guys, great work. This will be an instant purchase on release day.

Oh, by the way: can you guys at Aerges already tell us something about the pricing for all the different F1 versions or aren´t you allowed to talk about it, yet?

[Harlikwin]

On 7/7/2022 at 12:18 PM, rep3t3 said:

 

Hopefully Aerges or ED fix the 550, currently its working as all aspect when IRL it was rear aspect.

 

[Get_Lo]

1 minute ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Hopefully Aerges or ED fix the 550, currently its working as all aspect when IRL it was rear aspect.

 

If they really want to fix it they should also make it explode too early against targets in afterburner, rendering it ineffective. I jest, or am I?

[Tango3B]

5 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Hopefully Aerges or ED fix the 550, currently its working as all aspect when IRL it was rear aspect.

 

Uhm, you know that there was a Magic I (rear aspect) and a Magic II (all aspect), right? The latter is currently used by the M2k, so what exactly do you mean by your statement if I may ask politely? Is there any module (C101?!) that already uses the Magic I which I am not aware of?!

Edited July 8, 2022 by Tango3B

[Get_Lo]

Just now, Tango3B said:

Uhm, you know that there was a Magic I (rear aspect) and a Magic II (all aspect), right? The latter is currently used by the M2k, so what exactly do you mean by your statement if I may ask politely? Is there any module (C101?!) that already uses the Magic I which I am not aware of?!

 

We edited the Magic 1 (its already in the game, just not on a jet yet) onto a different module so we could test its performance. it can get shot all aspect at about 1nm

[Tango3B]

1 minute ago, Get_Lo said:

We edited the Magic 1 (its already in the game, just not on a jet yet) onto a different module so we could test its performance. it can get shot all aspect at about 1nm

Ah, ok. I understand. Well, in this this case I am totally with you and hope for the best. Thank you for your quick clarification.

[TLTeo]

8 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

We edited the Magic 1 (its already in the game, just not on a jet yet) onto a different module so we could test its performance. it can get shot all aspect at about 1nm

Tbh I don't think that's particularly meaningful given that a) the development version on a released module doesn't have to be identical to some legacy code already present and b) whether something is all aspect or not in DCS is super messy, see e.g. the R60M/AIM-9M doing their own thing on the L-39/C-101.

[Get_Lo]

2 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Tbh I don't think that's particularly meaningful given that a) the development version on a released module doesn't have to be identical to some legacy code already present and b) whether something is all aspect or not in DCS is super messy, see e.g. the R60M/AIM-9M doing their own thing on the L-39/C-101.

This isnt a legacy missile, it was added to the game a month ago, completely new addition for the F1. but yes, we will see when it releases.

[WarbossPetross]

Now that the cat is out of the bag (almost), I have a somewhat unusual request. Can we have the manual now? I've made a library of all things DCS (official and Chuck's guides as well as some IRL documents) that I read in my spare time sometimes. If the manual is ready now, can it be published so we can prepare in advance and generally see what is there to be excited about? I bet that would be a tease!

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Tango3B said:

Uhm, you know that there was a Magic I (rear aspect) and a Magic II (all aspect), right? The latter is currently used by the M2k, so what exactly do you mean by your statement if I may ask politely? Is there any module (C101?!) that already uses the Magic I which I am not aware of?!

 

Yup very well aware of the differences. Magic 1 is already in the game (added a patch or two ago), and currently it is all aspect (tested on mig21). Looks like a lua copy of the R60m with more range.

 

1 hour ago, TLTeo said:

Tbh I don't think that's particularly meaningful given that a) the development version on a released module doesn't have to be identical to some legacy code already present and b) whether something is all aspect or not in DCS is super messy, see e.g. the R60M/AIM-9M doing their own thing on the L-39/C-101.

Yeah IDK, but the 550 was added a patch or two back, so its not legacy.

 

Also, people will be sad about the 530 (also currently in game now), but well, they should be. Its very steampunk, aerial torpedo ish.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2022 by Harlikwin

[Get_Lo]

58 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Also, people will be sad about the 530 (also currently in game now), but well, they should be. Its very steampunk, aerial torpedo ish.

 

 

 

Sad? It was better than my expectations! its slightly better than the R3R which is all I wanted. although anyone who hasnt used the R3R will have a bit to learn

[Harlikwin]

7 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Sad? It was better than my expectations! its slightly better than the R3R which is all I wanted. although anyone who hasnt used the R3R will have a bit to learn

it is slightly better than the R3R so wish granted. Though honestly the R3R is probably overmodeled.

 

[Bremspropeller]

Wasn't there a toungue-in-cheek quote by a french pilot who said to get the best out of a 530 you'll just dump it after takeoff?

Anyways, the 530F is going to be on the CE (and the mother-effing Durandals!), so there's going to be some heavy Giraffing.

[Get_Lo]

34 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Wasn't there a toungue-in-cheek quote by a french pilot who said to get the best out of a 530 you'll just dump it after takeoff?

Anyways, the 530F is going to be on the CE (and the mother-effing Durandals!), so there's going to be some heavy Giraffing.

Im extremely happy with the choice to add the S530F, and best yet, we dont even have to wait until the F1M for it. This was a great decision by Aerges.
btw that quote reminds me of a jaguar pilot who said "The only reason the jaguar is able to take-off is because the earth is round"

[mwd2]

Can we have a look into the manual before 20. July?

Edited July 10, 2022 by mwd2

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Wasn't there a toungue-in-cheek quote by a french pilot who said to get the best out of a 530 you'll just dump it after takeoff?

Anyways, the 530F is going to be on the CE (and the mother-effing Durandals!), so there's going to be some heavy Giraffing.

F1 with the 530F should be decent. Though I hope the lack of "shoot down" capability is modeled.

 

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

F1 with the 530F should be decent. Though I hope the lack of "shoot down" capability is modeled.

Yeah, I'm kind of curious how the (was it MTI-mode?) radar will handle look-down engagements. The missile itself should be more than capable. Although I wouldn't expect pulse-doppler performance, naturally. It's not going to be shooting fish in a barrel, but I do expect one or the other look-down shot to actually connect.

[henshao]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah, I'm kind of curious how the (was it MTI-mode?) radar will handle look-down engagements. The missile itself should be more than capable. Although I wouldn't expect pulse-doppler performance, naturally. It's not going to be shooting fish in a barrel, but I do expect one or the other look-down shot to actually connect.

There are two aspects of this to consider:

The lookdown performance of the radar, and

The lookdown performance of the missile

 

In theory so long as the radar tracks well enough to keep the target illuminated, it comes down to the missile's seeker to do the hard work

[Harlikwin]

21 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah, I'm kind of curious how the (was it MTI-mode?) radar will handle look-down engagements. The missile itself should be more than capable. Although I wouldn't expect pulse-doppler performance, naturally. It's not going to be shooting fish in a barrel, but I do expect one or the other look-down shot to actually connect.

From what I have read the 530F really wasn't built for shoot down scenarios, its use case was shoot up at high fast targets like mig25's etc. 

Given altitude vs clutter scenarios, IRL I'd expect it to be basically useless on the deck, but plausibly able to engage lower targets at higher altitudes. I.e. if you are at 5k trying get some guy at 1k, it shouldn't really work. If you are at 30k vs some guy at 20 yeah its prolly fine.

19 hours ago, henshao said:

There are two aspects of this to consider:

The lookdown performance of the radar, and

The lookdown performance of the missile

 

In theory so long as the radar tracks well enough to keep the target illuminated, it comes down to the missile's seeker to do the hard work

The problem is that the missile seeker on the 530F wasn't a monopulse seeker so performance is gonna rather bad when there are multiple clutter returns, so it shouldn't work all that well in lookdown aside from "clearer" situations, i.e. high alt. This is one the the reasons the 530D was a big upgrade, cuz it had a monopulse seeker. Same thing with aim7F vs 7M

The issue in DCS being nothing like this is even modeled aside from maybe the way the M2k radar works since it actually models things like sidelobe and MLC at lower alt.

[killkenny1]

Edited July 10, 2022 by killkenny1