New MIRAGE 2000 Flight Model

I cannot wait for the new PFM to hit the 2.1.x branch of DCS. :) I really have hard time landing the Mirage correctly with the current FM, so I really hope that this was improved in the PFM overhaul as well.

I cannot wait for the new PFM to hit the 2.1.x branch of DCS. :) I really have hard time landing the Mirage correctly with the current FM, so I really hope that this was improved in the PFM overhaul as well.

Yes, in the old Fm, I had to keep speed around 165 so she wouldn't sink and be unrecoverable. Now, I've been on the marks at 135 and still flying the approach. Interesting.

Yes, in the old Fm, I had to keep speed around 165 so she wouldn't sink and be unrecoverable. Now, I've been on the marks at 135 and still flying the approach. Interesting.

nice! Can't wait for it!

I still get that glitch where you touch down rear wheels at low speed and front wheels bounce off the runway sending you into a vertical spin.

My 2 pences having tested the new FM:

- Massive improvements at high angles, it's much more like what we can see the 2000 do in meetings !

- +1 on the numbness of the pitch axis... (i wonder if it's not due to trim laws)

- altitude drops while doing turns in AP in altitude hold mode (!)

- acceleration is unrealistic past 1.3 mach for a bi-sonic fighter.... it takes ages to even reach mach 1.8

Unverified info (supposedly Dassault supplied) i have on the real 2000 regarding acceleration:

50% fuel load, 2 magic, at 36000 ft: it takes 2 minutes from 0.9 mach to 1.85 mach, and 3 minutes from 0.9 mach to 2.17 mach

source: http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

- +1 on brakes and Airbrakes effectiveness (lack of). It is very difficult to slow down the plane in finals

Keep up the good work Razbam, having the plane AOA based (rather than pitch based) at slow speed is a great path, the Mirage is now as nimble as it should be ! i'm sure the remaining issues will be fixed soon

Thanks !

What can you comment on gliding charesteristics? It has very low drag on 200-400 speed range and does not bleed of speed, but acts like a glider. Ground effect on landing is like 2-3 times greater than in othert modules seems overdone.

For those complaining about the pitch effectiveness, have you removed your curves? You may need to re-evaluate where they should be.

I have no curves, I still have a lot of "stiffness" trying to drop the nose at high speed / high altitude.

On approaches you need to pay attention to your AOA and use trim, it's completely different from what we did before, you have to do small and short flares before touchdown.

The best way is to have "AP SBY" and AP disconnect mapped on your stick.

That way you can use AP to trim the plane on final and then disconnect it when you are on the good path.

This is rather unusual but they do it like that for real.

At the latest you are supposed to disconnect AP at 200ft AGL.

After more testing, indeed the low speed model is terribly wrong.

With full AB 90' bank, full aft stick, I couldn't drop the speed below 163 kts.

This was with 50 % internal fuel. With 100 % fuel under the same conditions, speed drops only to 159 kts

If I perform the turn in a 20 deg. dive, the speed won't drop under 200kts!

It seems that this behavior is correlated with the

'' low speed behavior to be more AOA controlled, previously was pitch rate controlled. '' . The aircraft reaches the FBW AoA limit and won't drop speed anymore.

After more testing, indeed the low speed model is terribly wrong.

With full AB 90' bank, full aft stick, I couldn't drop the speed below 163 kts.

This was with 50 % internal fuel. With 100 % fuel under the same conditions, speed drops only to 159 kts

If I perform the turn in a 20 deg. dive, the speed won't drop under 200kts!

Can you describe concretely why it is wrong? What should it do? There are several reasons I think it might not be wrong.

* The AoA is limited by the computer, meaning what you perceive is full deflection of the stick is actually changing as you move through the envelope.

* The thrust to weight clean at %50 fuel is >1, and still quite high in the clean full fuel case.

The first point is the most convincing. If the AoA was not limited, then of course you'd expect to depart eventually, given sufficient control authority. However with limited AoA, why wouldn't the forces balance out, and moreover, since the AoA limit is naturally below the AoA at which the aircraft would depart, then the speed where all the forces come into balance should naturally be above the stall speed, otherwise the AoA would be higher than the limit, and the computer would force you to turn more slowly by invisibly reducing the control surface deflection in spite of your fully deflected stick.

I'd like the thank Razbam for their hard work on this new FM, which I am enjoying immensely. Now I can do all the airshow maneuvers I've seen mirages do!

You beat me to it, LOL

Can you describe concretely why it is wrong? What should it do? There are several reasons I think it might not be wrong.

 

* The AoA is limited by the computer, meaning what you perceive is full deflection of the stick is actually changing as you move through the envelope.

 

* The thrust to weight clean at %50 fuel is >1, and still quite high in the clean full fuel case.

 

The first point is the most convincing. If the AoA was not limited, then of course you'd expect to depart eventually, given sufficient control authority. However with limited AoA, why wouldn't the forces balance out, and moreover, since the AoA limit is naturally below the AoA at which the aircraft would depart, then the speed where all the forces come into balance should naturally be above the stall speed, otherwise the AoA would be higher than the limit, and the computer would force you to turn more slowly by invisibly reducing the control surface deflection in spite of your fully deflected stick.

 

I'd like the thank Razbam for their hard work on this new FM, which I am enjoying immensely. Now I can do all the airshow maneuvers I've seen mirages do!

My second post was a possible explanation for the first (quoted) post.

At first I was very surprised by the M-2000C behaviour caused by the new FM and felt like I couldn't make her what I wanted to do any more.

Then I removed all the previous curves modifications I have configured before.

Rebind all the HOTAS buttons and switches controls on my X52 Pro to include both the "AP Standby" and "AP disconnect" on my stick.

And now I can enjoy flying my beloved Mirage again !

I am not a pilot and all I know about the Mirage 2000C, apart from DCS and the Internet, comes from the ground crew, Engineers and the lucky ones who got the chance to get on-board (Mirage 2000B).

So, I am not qualify at all to say if what Razbam I've done is correct or if it is far from the real thing.

All I can say is that I like the new FM for what it offers and that it feels (take it with a grain of salt) more "believable" in my personal opinion.

Now, I wouldn't be surprise if Razbam is going to tweak her again in order to get closer and closer to the real Mirage 2000C behaviour, which is a good thing to me.

:thumbup:

Anyone tried the M2M Mirage 2000 in FSX and compared it with the DCS version?

That one has a reportedly realistic FM.

Second this. Want to know.

I like it a lot.

Actually the most relevant "bug" is with the airbrake efficency, really too low as confimerd in the track, and with not a pithc enviroment, a drag effect with nose dow.

However we are on the way finally.

Anyone tried the M2M Mirage 2000 in FSX and compared it with the DCS version?

That one has a reportedly realistic FM.

It's rather poor, because of inherent limitation of FSX regarding FMs.

It's rather poor, because of inherent limitation of FSX regarding FMs.

What FM :music_whistling:

Was the M2000C update from 1.5.8 also integrated into 2.2 today? Didn't seem to see any release notes regarding this. Thanks.

Was the M2000C update from 1.5.8 also integrated into 2.2 today?

Yes, including the latest changes: airbrake efficiency, aerobraking efficiency, drag between 200-400 kts, ...

Yes, including the latest changes: airbrake efficiency, aerobraking efficiency, drag between 200-400 kts, ...

Great! Thank you!

Honestly, what felt really weird the instant you where in the air was that the stick no longer feels symmetric. Feels like theres a huge curve set on the pitch angle while the roll angle feels normal and it can be seen also when turning on the control monitor window. This all felt really awkward to me. Is it really supposed to be like this?

Yes.

Read post #14

I tested the 2.2 FM a bit and I have to say it's close the perfect :).

The performances are exactly on spot from the limited range of test that I have done and most of all it feels GREAT.

Impressive job Razbam.