Jump to content

So about the M2000 FM and current state...


falcon_120

Recommended Posts

Hello everybody,

 

Thanks to the last sale I could not hold the trigger any longer and I bought the M2000C. I've been learning it lately and enjoying it a lot. Which basically leads me to the question I want to throw to the DEV team or any other user more up to date than me about the general info of this module or how it has change since it was launched, and that is:

-What is the current state of the FM?

-Is this considered mostly complete and accurate now?

-Is it accurate against known public available data and other RL comparative performance (i.e. In which type of combat it should be winning, in which regimes, versus which fighters etc...)

 

Why do I ask this, and I don't want to imply that Razbam have made a poor job or that the fighter is OP or anything, but I'm curious based on my perception, ONLY MY PERCEPTION i've noticed the following:

 

-This fighter turns incredibly well, even at high altitude, and it does not seem to loose too much speed, it feels a bit like its TWR is very good, right now I would say it tuns better than any other plane in DCS. In which regime should it turn better exactly? THIS MIGHT BE JUST A PERCEPTION OF ME; NO TEST HAS BEEN PERFORMED.

-His performance at high altitude is amazing, particularly is incredible how easy i can reach 50.000 and start gaining amazing speed, I don't know if its me but it seems like a better performer at high altitude over a F15c. I always though the eagle TWR was superior and his high altitude performance and speed would be better thanks to this.

 

And as a last comment, if razbam finally make the mirage 2000-5, and the FM is ok, that bird is going to be amazing with Fox 3s with that performacne at altitude and those speeds :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STR is a bit too much below 200kt (it should bleed more energy).

 

But yes, the Mirage 2000 fly very well at high altitude.

 

Real life data is FL360 loaded with bombs and wing tanks.

Empty wing tanks and 2000kg of remaining fuel FL500 (former Mirage IV/2000N/ 2000D WSO data) @ M0.95

So with AA load, you would have burned the fuselage bag fuel (1000kg) by reaching around FL360, and you would easily reach FL400.

 

M53 was originally designed for high altitude/ high speed twin engines interceptor.

Delta wing is good at transonic speed and give low wing loading, good for high altitude flights.

 

But I would advise you to keep FBW on CHARGES mode up high, or you could easily bleed all your energy.


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And just to add to the previous comment

 

Even if the Mirage is known to handle very well at low speed, it isn't something to do against the Hornet which is a monster in low speed arena.

Currently in DCS Mirage is the king in slow speed scissor / 1c fight in DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please remember, that AdA gave a very positive opinion on the FM and mostly asked for updates in how systems work...

 

Which means absolutely nothing if you really think about it. They want it primarily as a systems model/teaching tool. So of course thats the stuff they want fixed. They also have real planes, and presumably better but more expensive simulators. I doubt very much that they really care how good or bad the FM is because its largely irrelevant to them "its good enough" but they really want to teach folks which buttons to press in which order to task X.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means absolutely nothing if you really think about it. They want it primarily as a systems model/teaching tool. So of course thats the stuff they want fixed. They also have real planes, and presumably better but more expensive simulators. I doubt very much that they really care how good or bad the FM is because its largely irrelevant to them "its good enough" but they really want to teach folks which buttons to press in which order to task X.

 

No, it isn’t a part task trainer. The real simulator is better for that too.

French Air Force already explained officially that the intended purpose is cheap large scale multiplayer.

They even show cased it during latest Paris Air Show (Le Bourget).

 

But yes, they are primarily interested in weapon system. I wouldn’t complain about that, this is the most difficult to find.


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn’t a part task trainer. The real simulator is better for that too.

French Air Force already explained officially that the intended purpose is cheap large scale multiplayer.

They even show cased it during latest Paris Air Show (Le Bourget).

 

But yes, they are primarily interested in weapon system. I wouldn’t complain about that, this is the most difficult to find.

 

Fair enough, point being that they don't care if its not 100%, 80-90% or even 50% is probably just fine for what they want to do with it.

 

I think at some point though ED is going to have to start really double checking everyone's FM versus each other more rigorously, and this will be a major headache for them as the number of modules grows. And I'm not calling out the mirage here, but the whole F14 vs F16 vs peoples expectations fiasco that recently occured.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the nerds around here can quit nitpicking and accept that plus or minus a few percent is close enough. As much as people like to wheeze ''muh immersion digital combat SIMULATOR'' through a cloud of Cheetos dust at the end of the day it's a video game. If folks want it more real, the enlistment office is usually easy to find =)

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, point being that they don't care if its not 100%, 80-90% or even 50% is probably just fine for what they want to do with it.

 

 

At then end, if it flies like X-wing, it isn't good either. It can create negative training. So they do have to care about FM too.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the nerds around here can quit nitpicking and accept that plus or minus a few percent is close enough. As much as people like to wheeze ''muh immersion digital combat SIMULATOR'' through a cloud of Cheetos dust at the end of the day it's a video game. If folks want it more real, the enlistment office is usually easy to find =)

 

Could not agree more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 % realism on the FM / FBW of the Mirage in a simulator game is utopic.

But if there is some room for fine tuning - improvement, there is some data / first hand feedback to support that (like flying the real simulator) and AdA doesn't prohibit it, i would say why not improve it ?

If it's not possible then no problem, even the involvement of AdA and the info they provided on the avionics part of the Mirage simulation is a God's gift for all the Mirage freaks


Edited by jaguara5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the question is simply, should it be faster, more maneuverable, better to gain speed, height than the F-15 at altitude, let's say they are both on equal footing without weapons and hanging tanks? If so, then there are no questions; if not, then you need to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, for me in general related to a flight simulator like DCS is not about having a 100% perfect FM, cause that might be too difficult to obtain if even possible, given the military nature of those system.

 

However, there are some certain thresholds you dont want to cross, and those are related to specific flight characteristic or lack of against contemporaries that we may know they exist. Basically what i expect to have more fun is: I want to be able to apply certain tactics against certain types. If the F18 is winning a Sustained turn rate against an F16 I know that is wrong, and that tactic should not be rewarding me with kills cause it wouldnt in RL. In the same way if the M2000 is overperforming an F15 at high altitude or in climbing rate that is something I want fixed. Now if the climb rate in RL is 1850ft/min instead of 1890ft/min in game, that is not even important since i will not be able to discern (obviously if we talk about minor deviations here).

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the nerds around here can quit nitpicking and accept that plus or minus a few percent is close enough. As much as people like to wheeze ''muh immersion digital combat SIMULATOR'' through a cloud of Cheetos dust at the end of the day it's a video game. If folks want it more real, the enlistment office is usually easy to find =)

 

:thumbup:

Gigabyte Z390 Gaming X | i7 9700K@5.0GHz | Gainward Phantom GS RTX 3080 | 32GB DDR4@3200MHz | HP Reverb | TrackIR 5 | TM Warthog HOTAS | MFG Croswinds | DCS PD 1.0 / Steam VR SS 170%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@falcon120

 

So the problem then is primarily people playing AirQuake, based on your description there. Perpetual 1v1 wvr duels don't happen in real life. If they did, then all this nonsense with competitions and evaluations when an air force is choosing a new plane wouldn't happen. They'd simply compare stats and purchase the ''best hurdur fightah!!'' However, that doesn't happen, because real life is not AirQuake, and neither is any decent online server.

 

In any reasonable context, the bulk of complaints, barring the occasional legitimate bug or worthwhile complaint, boil down to nitpicking at best, and anal retention at worst. By all means fix what's easily fixable, but the nonsense ''stat comparison'' minmax mentality of some folks around here makes me cringe.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@falcon120

 

So the problem then is primarily people playing AirQuake, based on your description there. Perpetual 1v1 wvr duels don't happen in real life. If they did, then all this nonsense with competitions and evaluations when an air force is choosing a new plane wouldn't happen. They'd simply compare stats and purchase the ''best hurdur fightah!!'' However, that doesn't happen, because real life is not AirQuake, and neither is any decent online server.

 

In any reasonable context, the bulk of complaints, barring the occasional legitimate bug or worthwhile complaint, boil down to nitpicking at best, and anal retention at worst. By all means fix what's easily fixable, but the nonsense ''stat comparison'' minmax mentality of some folks around here makes me cringe.

 

You do have a point that stats alone without context and the implications of a fighter as a weapon SYSTEM are pointless and far more complex that x Fighter turns better. We all know that given any specific performance number is also worthless without stating the conditions under where those apply, even more x fighter might turn better than Y, while at the same time Y fighter might turn better that X fighter at a different speed or altitude.

 

But, if we are going to analyze a FM of a fighter; while is just part of the equation of the effectiveness of a fighter in a complex scenario, We can agree that the FM is indeed a big part, and also DACT is something that many people including myself loves to practice every now and then. Under this point of view, certain flight features should be set "right" or very close to "right" specially when compared to "adversaries" so the simulation provides this false feeling of correctness/entitlement to RL so everybody can play to be a fighter pilot happily :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 % realism on the FM / FBW of the Mirage in a simulator game is utopic.

But if there is some room for fine tuning - improvement, there is some data / first hand feedback to support that (like flying the real simulator) and AdA doesn't prohibit it, i would say why not improve it ?

If it's not possible then no problem, even the involvement of AdA and the info they provided on the avionics part of the Mirage simulation is a God's gift for all the Mirage freaks

 

Yes,and that's the Point for all DCS Modules . I hope they will all tweaking in the most realistic FM in future. We Flight-Simulator fans and don't to play a fighter Game. All others have still the Game-Mode in DCS.

 

 

 

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G973F mit Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Thrustmaster Warthog SLM - F/A-18 , MFG Crosswind V2 , Cougar MFD`s , HP Reverb , PointCtrl , i9@5,1Ghz/2080Ti,



:joystick: DIY 2DOF Motionsimulator with 4Ch Simshaker :joystick:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the nerds around here can quit nitpicking and accept that plus or minus a few percent is close enough.,,-Yes, the fact of the matter is that it’s possible here we get not plus or minus a few percent, but a completely different plane in terms of sensations and application. Well, if the percentage difference seems to be with f-15, then let's compare it with a high-altitude interceptor.

Look, there are Mig-31 high-altitude interceptors. It has a thrust-weight ratio with a maximum take-off mass of 0.66, a climb rate of 160 m / s to 11 km, and after supersonic speed of 250 m / s. The mirage has a thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum take-off weight of 0.57, rate of climb of 284 m / s. The Mig-31 has a cruising speed, subsonic 950 km / h, supersonic

2500 km / h, maximum 3400. The mirage has a cruising of 885 km / h, maximum 2500 km / h. Mig-31 at 2500km / h can fly 720 km, and how much can a mirage fly 2000 km / h? From the reviews of battles in Satal, it can be seen that the mirage can climb 12 km, accelerate in 4-5 minutes from 860 km / h to 2000 km / h and fly like this for 10-12 minutes. What is it that he will fly at 2000 km / h somewhere around 400 km.

Is such a good engine and aerodynamics of a mirage that allows it to fly like that? If so then take off my hat to the creators of this aircraft)

but usually a mirage fight looks like this, a climb of 12 km takes 3-4 minutes, acceleration from 860 km / h to 2000 km / h in 4-5 minutes, a fight at a speed of 2000 km / h 7 minutes, a fight at low altitudes 5 minutes, and return home.

On MiG-29 for example can be achieve with 950km/with until 2000km/untangle for 3 minutes and fly so 4 minutes, and all fuels 0. On f-15,16,18 not know not probyval. Can from whom there is data.according to the fuel consumption depending on the height and speed of the Mirage 2000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the nerds around here can quit nitpicking and accept that plus or minus a few percent is close enough.,,-Yes, the fact of the matter is that it’s possible here we get not plus or minus a few percent, but a completely different plane in terms of sensations and application. Well, if the percentage difference seems to be with f-15, then let's compare it with a high-altitude interceptor.

Look, there are Mig-31 high-altitude interceptors. It has a thrust-weight ratio with a maximum take-off mass of 0.66, a climb rate of 160 m / s to 11 km, and after supersonic speed of 250 m / s. The mirage has a thrust-to-weight ratio with a maximum take-off weight of 0.57, rate of climb of 284 m / s. The Mig-31 has a cruising speed, subsonic 950 km / h, supersonic

2500 km / h, maximum 3400. The mirage has a cruising of 885 km / h, maximum 2500 km / h. Mig-31 at 2500km / h can fly 720 km, and how much can a mirage fly 2000 km / h? From the reviews of battles in Satal, it can be seen that the mirage can climb 12 km, accelerate in 4-5 minutes from 860 km / h to 2000 km / h and fly like this for 10-12 minutes. What is it that he will fly at 2000 km / h somewhere around 400 km.

Is such a good engine and aerodynamics of a mirage that allows it to fly like that? If so then take off my hat to the creators of this aircraft)

but usually a mirage fight looks like this, a climb of 12 km takes 3-4 minutes, acceleration from 860 km / h to 2000 km / h in 4-5 minutes, a fight at a speed of 2000 km / h 7 minutes, a fight at low altitudes 5 minutes, and return home.

On MiG-29 for example can be achieve with 950km/with until 2000km/untangle for 3 minutes and fly so 4 minutes, and all fuels 0. On f-15,16,18 not know not probyval. Can from whom there is data.according to the fuel consumption depending on the height and speed of the Mirage 2000?

 

I'm not sure to understand totally your point, but here are some few comments:

- using MTOW to compare thrust to weight ratio with the Mirage for AA means nothing

Ramp weight with full AA load is 12797kg in game.

- yes, in this configuration the Mirage will easily reach FL360 and even FL400 as fuel burn.

- cruise speed doesn't means as much either. With AA or AG load the Mirage can sustain M0.95 or close at high altitude.

- former Mirage 2000N/ D weapon system officer reported me that with 2000kg of remaining fuel and empty wing tanks they would cruise home at FL500 @ M0.95 to save fuel.

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, but you don’t know what distance a real mirage will fly at a speed of 1.6 max? at an altitude of 12 km? and what engine speeds will be? Is there any table on the mirage, fuel consumption from heights and speed)?

 

Unfortunately, no, I don't have this, and you won't find this from open source.

We'll need to trust Razbam on that.

 

But the point is that the Mirage is light fighter, in AA the Mirage 2000C has a light load (4 missiles compared to 8 to 10 on F-15: Flanker), low wing loading thanks to delta wing, and the M53 engine was designed for high altitude & high speed.

 

So it's pretty good at high altitude.

 

A MiG-29 Fulcrum A (9.12) has about the same internal fuel as Mirage 2000C but with 2 engines. Better thrust to weight ratio but you have to expect lower endurance.


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fuel consomption has been modified with the last update. It is no more possible to fly full throttle + PC during 30min and do M2.2 at 52000ft with fuel flow at 110kg/min.

Now at high altitude with PGPC, the fuel flow is progressively augmenting with speed, which seems more credible.

Good Job RAZBAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...