Care to share your resources and data about the M2k performance?

[bkthunder]

As per the title. 

 

This seems to be the only piece of info widely available, which seems to be completely wrong according to your reworking of the FM. 

As of today, the M2000 in game has 

- the best sustained turn rate

- the best instanatenous turn rate

- the smallest sustained turn radius

In other words, it is simply the highest-perofming aircraft in the sim right now.

If you are going to release a FM that goes against all "popular belief" and available literature, can you please take care to document your findings and why it performs so differently?

This is a study sim, I at least am eager to learn and re-learn what I (think I) know, as long as it's not just a "because I say so" situation. 

 

 

P.S. this has nothing to do with balancing, I am fully against it and if the M2000 is indeed the best 4th gen fighter in the world, then I'm happy it is represented properly.
 

Edited February 1, 2023 by bkthunder
spelling

[Despayre]

3 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

As per the title. 

 

This seems to be the only piece of info widely available, which seems to be completely wrong according to your reworking of the FM. 

 

 

You claim that piece of info is "widely available" and yet, you provide a link from a Russian website only?? You so funny.

Like anyone in their right mind would click on that link these days... newbie hackers, they're so cute...

[AdrianL]

Just now, Despayre said:

newbie hackers, they're so cute

https://dcs.silver.ru/ has been around for many years. Every patch, they measure performance via automated scripts for various plane and then collect, collate and present the data for display (including EMCharts based on the collected data). 

Right now, it is one of the best ways to see how aircraft are performing in DCS so you can compare it to known RL charts.

[Despayre]

Just now, AdrianL said:

https://dcs.silver.ru/ has been around for many years. Every patch, they measure performance via automated scripts for various plane and then collect, collate and present the data for display (including EMCharts based on the collected data). 

Right now, it is one of the best ways to see how aircraft are performing in DCS so you can compare it to known RL charts.

That might be true, but as someone that spends days making sure clients don't do dumb things with their buildings' internet services, the LAST thing I'm gonna do is touch a Russian or Chinese website for information about a French airplane (or generally for anything), but that's just me I guess. I'm sure it's solid. /s

[Kercheiz]

This chart is the famous one from a Northrop sales symposium for promoting F-20s in Asia.

It's made to convince buyers that the Mirage 2000 is an inferior aircraft as a competitor.

Besides this, the Mirage 2000 performances are not publicly available. You won't have answers here.

There is no real point to this new thread since the other one has been closed.

@myHelljumper?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Kercheiz

[Akiazusa]

Oh come on,we can only carry 2 fox1 and a cannon with only 125 rounds, and u still think this jet is op as hell and need a nerf?

This is not that forum that you can upload anything on it.

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Despayre said:

the LAST thing I'm gonna do is touch a Russian or Chinese website for information about a French airplane (or generally for anything), but that's just me I guess. I'm sure it's solid. /s

And I can say that China was also plan to buy Mirage 2000 in the 80s and send pilot to test flied it many times, there are interviews from them saying the jet performance was superb on Chinese media.

But they didn't have enough money to buy it.

 

[myHelljumper]

The FM is based on data and SME feedback, some data we can share, some we can't.

What we were able to share is:

- The dead engine landing procedure, which gives the best glide speed and AoA as well as induced drag at this AoA. These are very useful information as they remove the engine from the equation.

- The break landing procedure, being done from 350 kt to 200 kt at 2G, it gives a good drag information with minimal engine input as it is done idle. The last turn also gives a lot of information on the lift of the wing, as it is done at high AoA and AoB (14° AoA, 40° AoB). The AoA induced by the AoB is critical here and is based on videos.

- Engine performance were based on a research paper on the M53 and M88 engine, we determined that the thrust curves on the document were in perfect condition and not accounting for limiting factor of the airframe so we are under-performing compared to them.

- Engine thrust based on VTH Jx.

- Flight domain performance based on videos and pictures.

All of the above have been tested and discussed with SMEs and adjusted where needed.

I should be able to post the sources for the research paper and post the break and dead engine procedure if you want to test them.

One last note, the current STR of the aircraft is lower than the old FM (pre-engine update). The Mirage wing and lift devices create a very flat STR curves (like most delta wing aircraft) which makes the aircraft very good for dogfights.

Edited February 1, 2023 by myHelljumper

[bkthunder]

57 minutes ago, gortex said:

 

That said, I would like to see your flight test data and methodology that support your claims before you begin this discussion.  Otherwise I'm just taking your word for it.  Not saying you're wrong, but you should have in-game flight test data to show.

 

Test data is posted in the link in OP. Other data (in game) I quoted is from "Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS" attached (very interesting document btw!).

 

Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS.pdf

[bkthunder]

28 minutes ago, myHelljumper said:

The FM is based on data and SME feedback, some data we can share, some we can't.

What we were able to share is:

- The dead engine landing procedure, which gives the best glide speed and AoA as well as induced drag at this AoA. These are very useful information as they remove the engine from the equation.

- The break landing procedure, being done from 350 kt to 200 kt at 2G, it gives a good drag information with minimal engine input as it is done idle. The last turn also gives a lot of information on the lift of the wing, as it is done at high AoA and AoB (14° AoA, 40° AoA). The AoA induced by the AoB is critical here and is based on videos.

- Engine performance were based on a research paper on the M53 and M88 engine, we determined that the thrust curves on the document were in perfect condition and not accounting for limiting factor of the airframe so we are under-performing compared to them.

- Engine thrust based on VTH Jx.

- Flight domain performance based on videos and pictures.

All of the above have been tested and discussed with SMEs and adjusted where needed.

I should be able to post the sources for the research paper and post the break and dead engine procedure if you want to test them.

One last note, the current STR of the aircraft is lower than the old FM (pre-engine update). The Mirage wing and lift devices create a very flat STR curves (like most delta wing aircraft) which makes the aircraft very good for dogfights.

 

Thanks, this gives some idea of what you used. Would love to see that engine research paper and the break and dead engine procedures. 
By the way that other F-16 sim that can't be named, comes with a set of Mirage 2k FM documentation that is said to be well researched. The STR and performance in general is **very** different than what we have now in DCS and much more similar to the older flight model of your M2k. Was that based on wrong/outdated info and how did you rule out SME bias?

[myHelljumper]

7 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

Thanks, this gives some idea of what you used. Would love to see that engine research paper and the break and dead engine procedures. 
By the way that other F-16 sim that can't be named, comes with a set of Mirage 2k FM documentation that is said to be well researched. The STR and performance in general is **very** different than what we have now in DCS and much more similar to the older flight model of your M2k. Was that based on wrong/outdated info and how did you rule out SME bias?

We don't know where their data was coming from or how they build their FM, we can't comment on that.

I will say again, peak STR of the old FM/engine was higher than the current peak STR.

I will post the document and procedures when I have the time.

Edited January 30, 2023 by myHelljumper

[opps]

Helljumper posted some STR and ITR charts for DCS M-2000C at RAZBAM discord. They are pined in mirage-2000c channel.

Edited January 30, 2023 by opps

[Kercheiz]

24 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

Test data is posted in the link in OP. Other data (in game) I quoted is from "Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS" attached (very interesting document btw!).

 

Subsonic_Energy_Maneuverability_Diagrams_for_DCS.pdf 8.17 MB · 2 downloads

The FM update was released on 21 september, 2022
This document is from 5 september 2022

We reworked the engine model two months before, and updated the FM shortly after. And acknowledged that during these two months, it was unrealistic.

 

@bkthunder please check that kind of thing before making any claim, especially aggressive ones, such as "flies like a UFO"

 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Kercheiz

[myHelljumper]

Here are some diagrams I made some time ago that reflect the current FM.

Flight domain, MAX AB, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

 

Flight domain, MIL power, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

15000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

10000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

5000 ft, 10,9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

Sea level, 10.9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

[Despayre]

3 hours ago, Akiazusa said:

...

And I can say that China was also plan to buy Mirage 2000 in the 80s and send pilot to test flied it many times, there are interviews from them saying the jet performance was superb on Chinese media.

But they didn't have enough money to buy it.

 

You've completely misunderstood my concerns. They have nothing to do with the content of that website. It's the content you DON'T see that concerns me.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Despayre

[Akiazusa]

8 hours ago, Despayre said:

You've completely misunderstood my concerns. They have nothing to do with the content of that website. It's the content you DON'T see that concerns me.

 

Sorry for that.. I though he post the performance document made by Russian intelligence at the beginning.. Someone posted that a lot of times on Razbam discord..

Edited January 31, 2023 by Akiazusa

[bkthunder]

22 hours ago, myHelljumper said:

Sea level, 10.9t, no external stores, standard atmosphere:

 

Do you have this for 50% fuel?

[myHelljumper]

No I don't and I don't want to spend the time doing them for 50% fuel.

As said before, the document ou linked above is from a Northrop sales symposium promoting the F-20 in Asia, not a reliable source.

Edited January 31, 2023 by myHelljumper

[bkthunder]

It's not about Northrop, I want to compare it with the F-16 where all charts are at much lower fuel weights (actually less than 50%)

[myHelljumper]

This is not the place to talk about other aircraft and comparing the Mirage with other aircraft is pointless, this is not how FM should be tuned or judged for accuracy.

[arnokm]

Some Ressources (but nothing with STR / ITR datas):

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800013819/downloads/19800013819.pdf

http://militera.lib.ru/manuals/0/pdf/tp_mirage.pdf

 

[bkthunder]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:52 PM, myHelljumper said:

This is not the place to talk about other aircraft and comparing the Mirage with other aircraft is pointless, this is not how FM should be tuned or judged for accuracy.

It is not a matter of comparing with other aircraft per se. 

The point here is that, lacking hard information, we try to understand the accuracy of the Mirage FM based on the comparison with a "known quantity" which is the F-16. 

 

The F-16 block 50 is widely documented and we have exact charts showing how it performs IRL. 

These are compared with the DCS F-16, and we see that it closely matches RL numbers for ITR and STR.

We don't know how the Mirage should perform due to lack of public documents, however we have plenty of literature, intrviews, heresay that the Mirage 2000 has a phenomenal ITR and a relatively poor STR.

 

Fact is:

The DCS Mirage 2000 performs better than the DCS F-16.

 

The conclusions can be two: 

1. This is not correct because it's contrary to common knowledge and heresay about how the M2000 should perform.

2. This is correct and realisitc, and all that has been written and said so far about the Mirage is bulls**t.

 

 

I'm not the one to say which is correct, but I think it is only fair that people might question this and that you - Razbam - should be able to answer in a convincign way.

[okopanja]

Yet another juicy gamer nerf topic, taking my pop-corns, do not mind me, carry on...

[myHelljumper]

On 2/5/2023 at 4:09 PM, bkthunder said:

The point here is that, lacking hard information, we try to understand the accuracy of the Mirage FM based on the comparison with a "known quantity" which is the F-16. 

I still fail to see how comparing the Mirage FM to the F-16 is relevant.

On 2/5/2023 at 4:09 PM, bkthunder said:

We don't know how the Mirage should perform due to lack of public documents, however we have plenty of literature, intrviews, heresay that the Mirage 2000 has a phenomenal ITR and a relatively poor STR.

We can only use hard data to tune the FM, "The aircraft is good there and bad there" is not enough.

Up until now I still don't see any evidence from your end that could demonstrate an issue with the Mirage FM except "common knowledge" which is, again, not valid data. (To illustrate my point with anecdotal evidence, in my young years a retired French fighter pilot told me that the Mirage was a better turn-fighter than the F-16, who should we believe ?)

Here are the procedures that I already shared in the other closed thread:

Dead engine landing procedure:

• 280 kt indicated should give you 41 nm from 30 000 ft (~14 nm per 10 000 ft). 280 is chosen because it's close to the best glide speed (~260 kt) and inside the engine relight domain. The slats should be forced in.
• Stabilize at 5000 ft to slow down to 230 kt minimum then drop the gear.
• Maintain 230 kt in final.

Break landing procedure:

• 350 kt / 1500 ft initial APP selected on PCA, seat raised.
• 60° AoB break, idle and airbrakes.
• Slow down until 200 kt.
• Maintain 200 kt and close the airbrakes, reduce the bank to 40°.
• Once on the downwind, gear down.
• When passing the runway threshold, 40° AoB, FPM at -7°.
• Once on the last 90° of the turn, look at the runway and adjust pitch and AoB.

Edited February 8, 2023 by myHelljumper

[myHelljumper]

Guy, not the place to talk about other modules, keep the discussion on the Mirage.

[BIGNEWY]

Thread cleaned

please do not post any restricted documents ( 1.16 ) if you do post a document please include the source showing it is 100% for public use. 

Also please do not derail the topic stick to the thread title.