DCS: M-III by Razbam ?

No no no mirage 5 is a 3 without few avionics

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Well the Mirage 5 was simply optimised for the Air-Ground role rather then the air-air role.

So it had more Weapons pylons and most variants had no need for a radar

(though some of the Mirage 5 Variants did have radars some even had the Cyrano IV radar of the mirage F1 and others with the Agave radar to allow them to carry the Exocet Anti-ship missile).

So how capable it would be would depend on the Exact Variants.

But some of the variants had superior avionics to the Mirage IIIC or E not worse.

Well the Mirage 5 is simply optimised for the Air-Ground role rather then the air-air role.

So it had more Weapons pylons and most variants had no need for a radar

(though some of the Mirage 5 Variants did have radars some even had the Cyrano IV radar of the mirage F1 and others with the Agave radar to allow them to carry the Exocet Anti-ship missile).

 

So how capable it would be would depend on the Exact Variants.

But some of the variants had superior avionics to the Mirage III not worse.

I know that the IAF is the reason they developed the 5 and we asked them to make it lighter and with more payload but it was for AA dogfights as well

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I know that the IAF is the reason they developed the 5 and we asked them to make it lighter and with more payload but it was for AA dogfights as well

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

It was still fully capable of air-air combat yes.

But it was more aimed towards a strike role with a secondary air-air role where as the Mirage III was Primarily a fighter with a secondary air-ground role.

(as it had improved air-ground capabilities compared to the Mirage III but was slightly less capable in the air-air role due to the lack of a radar and apparently being slightly less maneuverable.)

Same here.

 

Always prefer to have the Standard variant of the nation that designed it and used it the most then one of the export variants.

 

So i would also prefer the Mirage IIIC over an export CJ

(or any other Export IIIC variant)

Exactly.

I'm Swiss.

Do I love the Mirage III S ?

Of course.

Would I ask for a Mirage III S?

No.

But a Mirage IIIE: instant buy at any price.

The "my favourite pet" attitude should go for a more "bigger picture" one.

Not really :music_whistling:

 

France never had Mirage F1 as advanced as Iraqi Mirage F1 EQ6 standard.

Mirage 2000-9 is the most advanced one.

I do hope also that the Spanish dev team will listen.

No a "national" specific variant of the F-1, but a standard French F-1C.

I do hope also that the Spanish dev team will listen.

 

No a "national" specific variant of the F-1, but a standard French F-1C.

Well rather a French Mirage F-1E since they are making a F1EE which is the Spanish F1E variant

(where as the Spanish F1C variant was designated F1CE).

But it always depends on information.

What variant they have the best infromation on in order to make the best possible module.

So if razbam has all the info they would need for a full Mirage IIIC module but not all the info they would need for a Mirage IIIE module then id be 100% ok with them going Mirage IIIC

This probably plays less of a a part when it comes to a Mirage III C or a CJ as they are much more similar then a C vs a E or different Mirage F1 Variants (where there could be very significant changes between different F1s).

Well the Mirage 5 was simply optimised for the Air-Ground role rather then the air-air role.

So it had more Weapons pylons and most variants had no need for a radar

(though some of the Mirage 5 Variants did have radars some even had the Cyrano IV radar of the mirage F1 and others with the Agave radar to allow them to carry the Exocet Anti-ship missile).

 

So how capable it would be would depend on the Exact Variants.

But some of the variants had superior avionics to the Mirage IIIC or E not worse.

Off topic but I want to kill this legend: the Agave isn't mandatory to use Exocet.

Mirage F1 EQ had sea modes on their Cyrano IV radar to use Exocet.

Mirage 50EV with Mirage F1 nose and Cyrano IV M3 is Exocet capable.

Mirage 50FC and 50PA3 had Agave nose.

Off topic but I want to kill this legend: the Agave isn't mandatory to use Exocet.

 

Mirage F1 EQ had sea modes on their Cyrano IV radar to use Exocet.

Mirage 50EV with Mirage F1 nose and Cyrano IV M3 is Exocet capable.

Mirage 50FC and 50PA3 had Agave nose.

Never said it was mandatory =P.

Just said that some (i was thinking of the The PA3 primarily)

had the Agave which allowed it to use the Exocet.

Never said that was the only way to make it Exocet capable.

That was simply the way the came to be PA3 equipped.

(To fill the requirements needed by the Pakistani military at the time)

My understanding is that the PA3 were acquired around 1979,

where as the later Mirage F1 EQ variants with Exocet capability seems to be

Mid-Late 80s.

So maybe the Cyrano IVM variants compatible with the Exocet had not yet been developed / entered service therefore the only choice at the time the PA3 was developed / delivered might have been the Agave.

So im well aware that there are multiple other Radars used in conjunction

with the Exocet and i dont think i ever stated the opposite.

Recommended read with lots of info about the Mirage IIIC (actually the CJ) in combat and the problems that the Israelis found when they started using it, along with their workarounds. An eye opener on the model!

https://ospreypublishing.com/mirage-iii-vs-mig-21

Looking forward to the Mirage IIIC,I'd buy this in a heartbeat,I hope it's still on track RAZBAM.

Looking forward to the Mirage IIIC,I'd buy this in a heartbeat,I hope it's still on track RAZBAM.

Yes, but its seems its the end of thier to do list.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3060848&postcount=1

If any module we get "soonest" its certainly be the Av8B harrier. If you seen some of the WIP vidoes from here, The latest test video below.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3068613&postcount=69

Yes, but its seems its the end of thier to do list.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3060848&postcount=1

 

 

If any module we get "soonest" its certainly be the Av8B harrier.

Razbam states in that thread that the list is in no particular order of release, so no one knows which will be the last. That being said, the harrier certainly seems to be further along than the others so it would be really surprising if it isn't the first out. It seems like a toss up for the remaining three at this stage and any guesses are pure guesses since they are all in their infancy of development.

Razbam states in that thread that the list is in no particular order of release, so no one knows which will be the last. That being said, the harrier certainly seems to be further along than the others so it would be really surprising if it isn't the first out. It seems like a toss up for the remaining three at this stage and any guesses are pure guesses since they are all in their infancy of development.

so WIP mig19 screns of the early 3d model where shown too. SO id say its farther along too since well no info on the M3 either, but the harrier is fratherst long, and in later stages of developed. I think its def going to be release first, and certainly within 2017.

Another most excellent choice. The Israeli Air Force's success with the Mirage IIICJ turned this plane into a legend. There couldn't be a more appropriate version for DCS.

There just so happens to be two great episodes of Dogfights that talk about the Mirage III in the Israeli 6 day war complete with interviews with the pilots that flew them. I am kind of surprised no one has mentioned them in this forum from what I have seen. Anyways I will always remember what Col. Giora Epstein ISF ACE with 17 kills said about the Mirage III vs modern combat jets (41:00).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRR7Kkw8NBA

Really, really looking forward to this aircraft. For me, fighting with a Mirage III in DCS will bring together everything I personally love about sim air combat: a tricky flight model (hopefully) which will need constant attention, limited help from radar and other mod cons and a truly beautiful looking jet with real world bragging rights. Ya gotta love any jet you need to get from 190 to 170 kts on late finals. One ex RAAF Mirage pilot said of it that it loathed anything below 300kts! Should be a challenge to fly.

The only thing this thread really makes me think of is core DCS design and the lack of ability to build modules that have variants without great cost and effort involved. For example, you see a lot of RWR's strapped to the top of the cockpit glare shields as an addon/upgrade. The base cockpit remained unchanged (i'm talking hypothetically on versions/block changes and MLU's). You get engine upgrades or added cannards or other antennaes appear. I'd like to see a module that looked at a wider set of upgrades and did the lot together from the start to satisfy some of these requests from the outset. What really would be needed from ED and developers to satisfy the constant 'variant' wishes.

The only thing this thread really makes me think of is core DCS design and the lack of ability to build modules that have variants without great cost and effort involved. For example, you see a lot of RWR's strapped to the top of the cockpit glare shields as an addon/upgrade. The base cockpit remained unchanged (i'm talking hypothetically on versions/block changes and MLU's). You get engine upgrades or added cannards or other antennaes appear. I'd like to see a module that looked at a wider set of upgrades and did the lot together from the start to satisfy some of these requests from the outset. What really would be needed from ED and developers to satisfy the constant 'variant' wishes.

Totally agree, that was one thing I really liked from maybe a more unsung combat flight 'lite sim' by Thirdwire, that being Strike Fighters 2. One of things I liked the most that the majority of aircraft came with most if not all mainstream variants as well as later year upgrades. Even addon ships feature upgrades and refits as variants. For example the F-4 Phantom that comes with SF2 and the expansion packs and official addons include F-4B, C, D, E, F, J, K, M, N some of those had upgrades as well for different periods. That's a lot of versions for what's essentially one airframe, some are only minor changes, such as one little piece of avionics, or better engines, or add RWR for instance, they don't have to be reworked totally from scratch.

SF2 also did the same thing with AIM-7 and AIM-9 coming in D, E, E-2, E-4, F, M and P and for the AIM-9 B, D, E, E-2, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, P, P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5 that's an absolute tonne of different versions all with subtle differences. Why does this appeal to me? Because I with this I can do whatever I want I'm not constricted in any way and as a sandbox that's really what DCS should be.

I realise that the sheer amount of versions might be excessive and I agree. I also agree that DCS is a far better immersive and realistic sim where heart, blood, sweat and tears go into every module. I also know that many modules take ages to procure for very a very good reason - it results in incredibly high fidelity modules made to a near perfect standard for a PC representation. I know that adding versions might be resource intensive, will no doubt mean modules take even longer to finish and might not appeal to everyone for whatever reason.

The only thing this thread really makes me think of is core DCS design and the lack of ability to build modules that have variants without great cost and effort involved. .

What core DCS design you talk about?

The ability to strap extra addons on an aircraft is already there. M-2000C has optional D2M sensors, Bf-109 has optional flare gun, Mi-8 has armor and exhaust heat supressors, etc.

The ability to put multiple variants of the same aircraft is also there. Gazelle has 3 separate variants available, L-39 two.

The only limiting factor is time & resources needed to produce those extra variants at DCS quality level. Which is not SF2 or Il-2 1946 level.

I think about multitudes of versions of an aircraft and possibility of making that feasible in DCS.

The key would be with making it financially feasible :

- It need to be such that, the first version developed and released would need to provide considerable amount of reusable or easily editable assets, bigger the asset, the better.

- There needs to be market appeal for many versions, which, in turn requires an ability for customers to not need to buy it all over again for full price every time.

Perhaps a payment system that allow for owners of one version of the aircraft developed by one studio to buy additional versions for much less cost, but which ever the first version a user buys would be full price. This way, since developers would be making additional income with relatively few additional effort on an existing product, while the customers would be getting almost whole another aircraft, or many flavours of an aircraft for various roles / timeframes etc. for not much more additional cost.

While theory sounds like a very nice win-win, I can't say whether this could be made to work or not. But I sure would enjoy that.

Another option may be joint ventures between studios, one company releases X-9900A Brawling Hawk, another company signs a contract for getting some of the assets / code, and develop it into a X-9900B Muddy Hawk, and original studio gets a cut from second product's sales for no effort. Just thinking outloud of course, I wouldn't be that comfortable lending my hard developed assets to a potentially rival company myself :P.

Well this whole post is thinking outloud anyways. Since the number of the individual aircraft in DCS is reaching a nice point, may be the point of having multiple versions of one airframe is slowly becoming not only feasible, but perhaps also desirable. We'll see if this will ever become feasible though.

There are however many aircraft where different versions would sure garner some interest: many versions of Mirage III and V, F-4, F-16 if it ever happens, many WW II aircraft that had qiute different handling, firepower and performance characteristics between versions, Mirage F-1, MiG-21, MiG-23, these would be just a few where more than one version would be in demand in community.

I guess in the coming years we'll see will this ever become feasible for both developers and customers. But, if it will be, I guess showing that there is a will for that to happen can be the first step, hence my salad of words here :D.

What core DCS design you talk about?

 

The ability to strap extra addons on an aircraft is already there. M-2000C has optional D2M sensors, Bf-109 has optional flare gun, Mi-8 has armor and exhaust heat supressors, etc.

 

The ability to put multiple variants of the same aircraft is also there. Gazelle has 3 separate variants available, L-39 two.

 

The only limiting factor is time & resources needed to produce those extra variants at DCS quality level. Which is not SF2 or Il-2 1946 level.

Oh yeah I'm well aware of that SF2/IL-2 and DCS are totally different ball games (DCS being the superior one :smilewink:) But many aircraft versions are basic copy and paste but with perhaps small model alterations, engine performance changes or avionics. Some are of course much different (F/A-18C compared to F/A-18E for instance). But I'm guessing for many aircraft types it is essentially copy and paste but with some slight change.

Like what WinterH said, the whole version thing is feasible only if a certain degree of copy and paste can be applied to the aircraft otherwise it's like completely redoing it which isn't feasible.

In the case of the Mirage III the differences between them all aren't that great, the difference between the IIIC and IIIE is different avionics (RADAR, TACAN, A-G support) and different engine - not something that would require a total rebuild - then again I'm no software developer...

Except you now have multiple different aircraft to maintain and it remains to be seen if it really gets you that many extra sales. A variant that is wildly different will be sellable but comes with major extra work, a very similar one might not sell well at all while still requiring extra work to maintain it.

Oh yeah I'm well aware of that SF2/IL-2 and DCS are totally different ball games (DCS being the superior one :smilewink:) But many aircraft versions are basic copy and paste but with perhaps small model alterations, engine performance changes or avionics. Some are of course much different (F/A-18C compared to F/A-18E for instance). But I'm guessing for many aircraft types it is essentially copy and paste but with some slight change.

 

Like what WinterH said, the whole version thing is feasible only if a certain degree of copy and paste can be applied to the aircraft otherwise it's like completely redoing it which isn't feasible.

 

In the case of the Mirage III the differences between them all aren't that great, the difference between the IIIC and IIIE is different avionics (RADAR, TACAN, A-G support) and different engine - not something that would require a total rebuild - then again I'm no software developer...

The difference between Mirage IIIC and Mirage IIIE would be of the same order as between F-16A and F-16C.

Mirage IIIC is first a light fighter/ interceptor.

Mirage IIIE is a multirole all weather fighter bomber, with longer airframe to take more fuel and more avionic. The task ran from high altitude rocket assisted interception to anti radar mission with Martel ARM and low level blind penetration for tactical nuclear strike.

The difference between Mirage IIIC and Mirage IIIE would be of the same order as between F-16A and F-16C.

 

Mirage IIIC is first a light fighter/ interceptor.

Mirage IIIE is a multirole all weather fighter bomber, with longer airframe to take more fuel and more avionic. The task ran from high altitude rocket assisted interception to anti radar mission with Martel ARM and low level blind penetration for tactical nuclear strike.

Yes, but would it require a complete rebuild of the module to the extent that a new module would be necessary, at the same workload as the original?

The RADAR and avionics differs to facilitate A-G (Cyrano II replaces Cyrano I on the C), the fuselage is 30cm longer and it has slightly improved engine. Would you say that would require developers to start completely from scratch? I would argue no.

F-16A and F-16C? The C features an improved engine and avionics the RADAR goes from being an AN/APG-66 to an AN/APG-68 The C in it's later version adds the use of more modern equipment. Would you say that would require a developer to start from scratch or can more things be recycled? Fundamentally the aircraft are the same dimensions, have largely the same flight dynamics (apart from engine improvements), the cockpits are different as a result of the new avionics, that maybe will require a start from scratch as there are less things able to be recycled. It's a similar story for the A-10A and the A-10C. In that case the A-10A is an FC3 aircraft and afaik wasn't developed alongside the A-10A meaning a larger workload is required.

But It's not like were saying why not make an Su-34 we have the Su-27, because they are drastically different. What we're saying is that in the case of the Mirage IIIC and E lots of things can be copied and pasted, sure the avionics can't but that's about it. the 3D model would require only minor changes. The flight model would require minor changes, I just can't see developers having to start again to procure the IIIE out of a IIIC

What I'm trying to do is say that for certain aircraft quite a few things can be recycled, I'm not saying they are 100% copy and paste - avionics for instance are I'm guessing one of the main focal points of development taking time to procure. If that is the case I would propse that variants have a lower price-tag to the initial module providing that I've purchased the initial module. What I'm trying to say is for instance on the Viggen, we currently have the AJS-37 version, if Heatblur decided to a JA-37 (A-A variant) as a follow up to the AJS-37, recycling a lot of features and selling it at a reduced price provided the AJS-37 module was already purchased - so your just paying for the alterations, not the whole aircraft.

All I am saying that in some cases a lot of things can be recycled to make an aircraft variant - like what Polychop did with the Gazelle and like what Aviodev are doing with the C-101

Like I said I'm not a developer and it was just an idea, if lots of assets and features can be reused or undergo only minor changes then I don't see why different variations wouldn't be possible. Like I said I'm no expert, nor do I pretend to be one.

Except you now have multiple different aircraft to maintain and it remains to be seen if it really gets you that many extra sales. A variant that is wildly different will be sellable but comes with major extra work, a very similar one might not sell well at all while still requiring extra work to maintain it.

True, I can see what you're saying, we have already have 3 different versions of DCS which I'm imagining is a nightmare for developers. What we are trying to say that variants would ideally recycle as much as possible from an already procured aircraft or developed in tandem with, so in an ideal case there isn't too much of a workload, now I'm not saying that will be the case for all aircraft types.

As for being 'sellable' it depends on the pricing and whether or not people want it - that has always been a problem for developers as we have limited resources and a smaller player base but with largely different interests. If we had the resources it wouldn't be much of an issue. Some people loathe trainers, some people are fond of them. In the case for every aircraft. With FSX/P3D there is a gigantasaurus of resources and developers meaning, if you want to fly something in particular, chances are you already have it, plus some developers don't just add aircraft, they add other improvements. With DCS that is simply not the case, we simply do not have the resources. We are lucky in that RAZBAM, better known as a FSX/P3D developer has at least temporarily jumped ship to DCS

Who says temporarily?

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-N9005 met Tapatalk