New MIRAGE 2000 Flight Model

Yes we get it, but what is the point of complaining about one point of the new flight model from page 12 to page 20 in this thread again and again. From 21. Dec 2017 to today. Razbam stated on 03. Dec 2017, weeks before you started to complain about it, that your problem with the new FM is known and will be tuned! The link to CptSmiley's post was linked a couple of times for you here in the thread. So why going on and on and turning in a circle? We all know that Razbam is busy with the Harrier, the new FM update was the first major improvement/patch to the Mirage for months and there was no fixing/tuning patch for it except a minor one. So just wait for the next FM update, check the behavior of the Mirage and then you can complain that the problem wasn't fixed in that patch.

I never saw any link to CptSmiley talking about and confirming this, if I had I would've simply left it at that. Also I'm responding to people who don't seem to understand what you claim to have understood from the beginning (didn't start talking about G onset until page 16 btw), otherwise they wouldn't be defending the current FM, nothing else.

First, stop pretending you're only speaking of G onset

What else am I complaining about though? It's been about G onset since page 16, before that I complained about the nose refusing to drop.

In short what are you on about now with "don't pretend"?

Right, CptSmiley didn't spoke about G onset but pitch responsiveness

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3337213&postcount=186

Link to the post + quote

Alright I didn't catch that post initially as it wasn't a response to one of mine, but if that's Smiley talking about the same thing then that's great, and hopefully we will see it fixed to match the real thing then. It's the only big issue I have left with the FM since I've managed to somewhat solve the reluctance of the nose to drop via the axis tuning tool (thanks to Vladinsky, never tried the "slider" option before, worked nicely)

.

What else am I complaining about though? It's been about G onset since page 16, before that I complained about the nose refusing to drop.

 

In short what are you on about now with "don't pretend"?

Maybe this citation gives you an idea why people are a bit

suspicious :

In short it is clear to me that the current FM is NOT realistic as it simply looks nothing like the real thing.

Hi gents,

Everybody happy with the Yaw when rolling?

If not mistaken not in Raz List, Az Jojo?

Maybe this citation gives you an idea why people are a bit

suspicious :

But why? The FM really doesn't look anything like what we see in the HUD video, and that due to the weird slow G onset. Not sure why that would make anyone suspicious, and suspicious of what?

But why? The FM really doesn't look anything like what we see in the HUD video, and that due to the weird slow G onset. Not sure why that would make anyone suspicious, and suspicious of what?

Ok, I will try it the careful way.

You are judging the whole DCS Mirage 2000C FM by one factor (G onset in this case) and draw the conclusion that it is nowhere to real (proven by a limited quality video of a possible M2000C - my opinion). As I implied earlier the FM consists of myriads of code where G-onset is a factor of 1% at best (educated guess). As you said earlier you are no expert in this plane nor FBW systems (as I).

To get to the point: Telling the developers and the community (especially the ones who know what they talk about) that the whole FM is way off and nowhere to real by a factor which is only a minor fraction of the whole thing, (and a known issue btw - you didn't see it so let's forget this part) makes me realize how calm and relaxed this community can be sometimes - or in other words If it was my FM code I would be seriously offended...

Edit: I have no idea if there is some kind of language barrier between us (I'm no native speaker) but it sounds very arrogant in my translation. I have no idea from where you are, but eventually it was meant another way. But I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who interpreted it this way.

A good example of this is: "I found bug x. Please fix it tomorrow with a hotfix, Friday at latest. It's urgent for me!"

Ok, I will try it the careful way.

 

You are judging the whole DCS Mirage 2000C FM by one factor (G onset in this case) and draw the conclusion that it is nowhere to real (proven by a limited quality video of a possible M2000C - my opinion). As I implied earlier the FM consists of myriads of code where G-onset is a factor of 1% at best (educated guess). As you said earlier you are no expert in this plane nor FBW systems (as I).

 

To get to the point: Telling the developers and the community (especially the ones who know what they talk about) that the whole FM is way off and nowhere to real by a factor which is only a minor fraction of the whole thing, (and a known issue btw - you didn't see it so let's forget this part) makes me realize how calm and relaxed this community can be sometimes - or in other words If it was my FM code I would be seriously offended...

Very good summary :thumbup:

For the video, there is no doubt this is a Mirage 2000 solo display training.

And every agreed the plane should be more "nervous" in pitch.

Apart from that and the "tail slide problem"* everything else is better than previous FM: take off, cruise, in flight refueling, landing, sustained turn rate...

*When you do a tail slide you're outside flight envelope, and the FBW should take control to go out of it. So the pilot has a dead stick for several seconds, and in a fight you're likely dead:

I managed to put a Mirage 2000 into the vertical whilst being chased and held the manoeuvre a few seconds too long – when I looked into my HUD I was in the pure vertical at 60 knots and decelerating ! As we hit Zero the aircraft began to slide backwards and the ‘burner blew out. My heart-rate increased. As the aircraft went beyond its design envelope, the nose simply flopped over pointing earthwards – with a few small turns the airspeed picked up. As I hit 200 knots I simply flew the aircraft back to straight and level. I admit that my opponent did shoot me down, but he did say it looked spectacular. This sort of carefree handling gave pilots huge confidence in the aircraft”

Perhaps it's a language barrier thing, because when I'm saying the FM is unrealistic I mean that the ingame a/c doesn't behave like the real thing in a very noticable way visually, and currently this is due to maybe just one issue, call it minor or insignificant, that is nonetheless having a big effect on how the aircraft is behaving in flight.

In short I am not saying that all the rest of the FM is inaccurate, because 99% of it might very well be spot on, but some inaccuracy, even it's just that last 1%, is currently causing a big visual discrepancy.

One thing about visual effect.

The video is a HUD cam. It has a narrow FoV.

So Yes current FM needs to be more nervous, but if you fly zoomed in like the HUD cam, you will feel it differently.

One thing about visual effect.

 

The video is a HUD cam. It has a narrow FoV.

So Yes current FM needs to be more nervous, but if you fly zoomed in like the HUD cam, you will feel it differently.

Well I was mostly looking at the G meter which is where the big difference occurs to me.

Other than that if I'm just looking at the visual cues then the real thing seems a little less stable allround compared with the ingame version which feels more like it's on rails, as if momentum isn't completely modelled (no wobble). But I'm not sure how they could fix that.

Why not make it so that full stick deflection activates the AP disconnect like it does on the real aircraft?

Pulling 40kg really isn't that much if it's a supported load i.e around a pivot like a stick. it's really not beyond any but the weakest people with a bit of effort. Certainly not anyone in the military.

Why not make it so that full stick deflection activates the AP disconnect like it does on the real aircraft?

 

Pulling 40kg really isn't that much if it's a supported load i.e around a pivot like a stick. it's really not beyond any but the weakest people with a bit of effort. Certainly not anyone in the military.

Well it's basically like a single arm row with a 40 kg dumbell, which I'd wager most people wont be able to "easily" manage:

With two arms however, sure most soldiers and probably pilots I'd expect to rather easily manage that. With one arm I'm not so sure however, here 40 kg is a lot.

In an emergency however, with the adrenalin pumping, sure with one arm I think a fighter pilot will be able to do it. But the saying anyone but the weakest can do it is abit misleading I think :P (At least I know some pilots I'd wager couldn't :P)

Sorry if I missed it but where is the 40kg figure being cited from?

Sorry if I missed it but where is the 40kg figure being cited from?

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/france/dassault/mirage2000/manuel-pilote-mirage-2000-c.html

P47

Explanations

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1984/ICAS-84-4.5.1.pdf

The force diagram isn't exactly the same. There is a "wall" in the test pilot document that we don't have in the Mirage 2000C RDM document.

In the real aircract it's not a big deal, Mechanic stop is easily reachable like in the Rafale, yes flying all the way to the mechanic stop for 5 min will rekt your shoulder but if you are #FIT#Xfit it's no big deal. :)

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/france/dassault/mirage2000/manuel-pilote-mirage-2000-c.html

P47

 

Explanations

http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1984/ICAS-84-4.5.1.pdf

 

The force diagram isn't exactly the same. There is a "wall" in the test pilot document that we don't have in the Mirage 2000C RDM document.

Thanks for clearing that up. I've read the ICAS paper, I didn't realize the manual on avialogs included FBW info :doh:

I believe some information in the ICAS paper is common with this this AGARD conference presentation starting on page 77. I don't speak french however so I'm not sure if any additional/relevant info is contained within the text.

In the real aircract it's not a big deal, Mechanic stop is easily reachable like in the Rafale, yes flying all the way to the mechanic stop for 5 min will rekt your shoulder but if you are #FIT#Xfit it's no big deal. :)

Sure. Sitting down it's possible for a weakling like me to yank 40kg (~88lbs in freedom units;) ) so long as long as I'm sitting and can brace my legs against something. The purpose (I'm not trying to imply you're wrong here) is the required force is so high such that a pilot must make a very conscious effort to exceed it.

In the real aircract it's not a big deal, Mechanic stop is easily reachable like in the Rafale, yes flying all the way to the mechanic stop for 5 min will rekt your shoulder but if you are #FIT#Xfit it's no big deal. :)

I suspect it's easier in the Rafale to override the "elastic stop", it seems to be part of the regular solo display to pull 10G. At least I think I watched HUD video of each solo display pilot (Rut, Micka, Tao, Marti) and there's always 10G turns...

Thanks for clearing that up. I've read the ICAS paper, I didn't realize the manual on avialogs included FBW info :doh:

 

I believe some information in the ICAS paper is common with this this AGARD conference presentation starting on page 77. I don't speak french however so I'm not sure if any additional/relevant info is contained within the text.

Avialog manual is in French too :smilewink:

AGARD document doesn't bring anything new, and the ICAS paper, written by Jean Coureau, Dassault's chief test pilot (first Mirage 2000 flight in 1978 ), then flight test director (1979), is more interesting to read.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/history/men/jean-coureau/

Avialog manual is in French too :smilewink:

 

AGARD document doesn't bring anything new, and the ICAS paper, written by Jean Coureau, Dassault's chief test pilot (first Mirage 2000 flight in 1978 ), then flight test director (1979), is more interesting to read.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/history/men/jean-coureau/

 

I’ll have to take your word for it. .The AGARD paper was written by the Head of Flight Dynamics at Dassault. I thought perhaps it contained something the FM or ICAS paper didn’t. I’ve had limited success using google translate’s camera function but it’s just too much text in this case to bother. :music_whistling: