Mirage 2000C Missing Feature/Bug list

It sounds like the Mirage would meet your needs then...

For the kind of missions we do, the lack of features or bugs are a pain, if you don’t plan on doing long missions, with external tanks air refuel, by night, and proceed to a CCRP run expecting to hit a target, you’re fine...

Air/Air work is mostly fine, if you can live with some radar bugs.

Flight model is good, don’t expect any failures as they are not modeled

Ok, What is wrong with radar? Can it be used in combat properly? I mean what is wrong with it?

Thank god that there is no failures..I will make my own instead..a lot lol...

You are free in your decision of course.

 

I bought this module in pre order while t was 30% finished at best. Razbam was working on it until they suddenly stop and move to the Harrier and left really a lot of this unfinished. Especially the radar and the armament deployment system, you know how to select and shoot missiles ...

 

Now if I was about to buy and knowing all these information I would save my money wait for the Hornet and the Tomcat. The Hornet is out in 1 month or 2.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

The updates required for the Mirage 2000C are far to late and the next aircraft the Hornet is almost on the scene. For me, the Mirage is off the my system and I've decided to work more with aircraft that have TAD features such as the A-10C to become more familiar with procedures in anticipation of the arrival of the Hornet. I will not be looking at acquiring any RAZBAM products in the future.

Damn, as someone who preffers cas that is no go then. Ah well back to rereading other planes. I will not spend 60$ easy. This was lot of info, I think i understand most of it. :thumbup:

Ok, What is wrong with radar? Can it be used in combat properly? I mean what is wrong with it?

 

Thank god that there is no failures..I will make my own instead..a lot lol...

The radar is buddy. It sometimes drops contact without any reason (not because of notching or ground clutter) and you can’t lock them again.

If you deselect a locked contact or you loose the contact because of a valid or invalid reason, it resets the elevation which is Very annoying.

The close combat mode has also problems. If you lock a contact, it’s very hard to deselect it and select another, which can make you loose the fight if you try hard to make it work...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what I did. Uninstall mirage and went back to the a10c.

 

No need to fight razbam anymore. I gave my money and time, now its time to move on and stop complaining.

 

Enviado desde mi Moto Z Play mediante Tapatalk

It looks like you do love to complain., and repeat, and repeat, and repeat...

Exactly, I deleted the Mirage two weeks ago and decided to stop complaining. Simply dedicate myself to more professional modules.

 

This is my last negative comment on razbam.

In fact I never understood why you bought it in the first place.

You came here asking questions, you did have answers about the state of the module, but you bought it anyway and started to complain.

This thread never acknowledge any update...

@ Aries:

Yes, even if the module was perfect, the "C" of Mirage 2000C is for "Chasse" = Fighter.

It isn't a CAS aircraft. That's A-10 and Harrier job.

The Hornet should be out in a few weeks/ months...without AG radar, without targeting pod :music_whistling:

Mirage 2000C Missing Feature/Bug list

I trust ED to finish the Hornet and make out of it a realistic module more than Razbam. Those who look fir realism and bought the Mirage wasted their money. Me first.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does anyone know what (real airplane) controls the intensity of all the green cockpit elements, PCA labels, etc.?

Never understood why people buy these modules then delete them if they don’t like them. At some point the module will be complete, so try something else until that happens.

Personally I love blasting around in the Mirage, especially with forum members mods. It does what I want it to do anyways and I don’t get hung up on the issues it has.

Also there is a (serious) discrepancy between the VTH/ VTB indications.

Look at the image : according to the VTH the aspect angle of the target is 175, according to the target heading line in the VTB and the respective numeric indications (target heading 325/ own heading ~180) the aspect angle should be ~145

Also there is a (serious) discrepancy between the VTH/ VTB indications.

Look at the image : according to the VTH the aspect angle of the target is 175, according to the target heading line in the VTB and the respective numeric indications (target heading 325/ own heading ~180) the aspect angle should be ~145

Hi,

first of all, that is not how aspect angle works. Refer to good 'ol Pete

Secondly, you are in PID (TWS) mode, so the position/heading update of the bandit is slower than in PIC (STT) and the information lags behind the bandit's actions.

Hi,

 

first of all, that is not how aspect angle works. Refer to good 'ol Pete

 

Secondly, you are in PID (TWS) mode, so the position/heading update of the bandit is slower than in PIC (STT) and the information lags behind the bandit's actions.

This is for F-16.

So it will become a semantic flaming war between "aspect angle", "angle off"...things we already went through.

Plus in the Mirage the HUD and radar display angles are complementary.

So if you have 150° in HUD, you should have 30° in VTB.

Finally it's the plane heading/ radar lock line.

But this specific case, the target is 12 o'clock. So you can use directly own ship heading.

Yet PID is a good point.

It might be semantics, but why even call it "aspect angle" then?

I have not read the updated manual in it's entirety but in the VTB section there is no mention of aspect angle anywhere, only the "b-angle", which in the video is called "heading crossing angle".

Aspect angle is a very specific measurement to figure out your displacement to the bandit [ sin(aspect) x range = displacement ]... as per the video. This is useful for intercepts if you know your turn radius.

If people are asking about aspect but mean something different, they shouldn't call it that. I was admittedly unaware of the terminology in the manual, but there is no mention of aspect, and the VTB does not show aspect.

It might be semantics, but why even call it "aspect angle" then?

I have not read the updated manual in it's entirety but in the VTB section there is no mention of aspect angle anywhere, only the "b-angle", which in the video is called "heading crossing angle".

 

Aspect angle is a very specific measurement to figure out your displacement to the bandit [ sin(aspect) x range = displacement ]... as per the video. This is useful for intercepts if you know your turn radius.

 

If people are asking about aspect but mean something different, they shouldn't call it that. I was admittedly unaware of the terminology in the manual, but there is no mention of aspect, and the VTB does not show aspect.

Just what I said :megalol:

Hi,

 

first of all, that is not how aspect angle works. Refer to good 'ol Pete

 

Secondly, you are in PID (TWS) mode, so the position/heading update of the bandit is slower than in PIC (STT) and the information lags behind the bandit's actions.

But he is not talking about lag or no lag. He is saying that the HUD and VTB numbers are different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If people are asking about aspect but mean something different, they shouldn't call it that. I was admittedly unaware of the terminology in the manual, but there is no mention of aspect, and the VTB does not show aspect.

Read p. 234 and 235 of the manual

I remember this picture was posted some time ago .

So the correct terminology is '' interception angle''?

Well I stand corrected then, there is mention of aspect in the manual.

But then I don't get your question, I think the VTB (target symbol/vector) lags behind, and the numbers are in real time? That would explain the expected difference in your image.

I have not paid close attention to it, but I would suggest to go for PIC and then see if the same happens.

Quick clarification. There are two kinds of aspect, Aspect Angle (AA) and Target Aspect Angle (TAA or TA). Aspect Angle (AA) is your position relative to the target's heading while Target Aspect Angle is the angle off as seen by the target looking at you. If you are in front of the target you are at 180 AA and 0 TAA. Behind the target you are 0 AA and 180 TAA. Clear as mud? Remember this the next time someone says "aspect" loosely that it can be TAA or its supplement, AA.

Angle off is something else, basically how far to the side to you have to look to look toward the target. I guess you could call it what the target would describe as his position TAA because for him you are the target.

HUD is showing AA, VTB is showing TAA.

Picture in thread shows an impossible situation. Target track shows clearly TAA of 45 degrees right but HUD gives AA 175.

Realize also that aspect can be either a 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional concept. If you squish the picture to a 2-dimensional map understanding you get a different angle than considering the 3-dimensional picture. If you are 1000' above and 1000' behind a target are you at 0 TAA or 45? What would you put on the HUD if you wanted to warn the pilot of a possible Doppler notching situation? Does the radar care about 2D or 3D aspect when Doppler filtering the ground away? Give it a think.

Lastly we have considered heading and track to be interchangeable. Strictly they are not. The radar cannot know target heading only target track. Radar cannot discern what is the front of the object only its direction of travel. With winds and AOA being what they are the simulation can be checked that it isn't cheating by looking up the object's heading when it should have to make do with velocity vector.

VTB "AB" number is showing target heading (track) in true instead of magnetic. That shouldn't be unless perhaps you set the jet into Cv mode. So that's something to fix.

HUD angle number seems to be tied directly to the VTB number as its supplementary angle. They both represent the 2D way of viewing aspect, not 3D. Increment chunks of 5 are fine (although it's suspicious radar isn't in 5-chunks too) but the incrementing is goofy:

AB 180-175 displays HUD 0

AB 175-170 displays HUD 5

AB 170-165 displays HUD 10

and so on

Why is it truncated instead of rounded? Surely you want the range of angles 2.5 to 7.5 degrees to be shown as 5. I don't know the real systems but it's worth a sanity check. As it is currently you'll never see 180 on the HUD even within +-5 of target's front because 180 only happens at 180. 179.99999 would show as 175.

PID and PIC show same AA/TAA HUD/VTB data as far as I can tell.

With 30 or 10 azimuth scan I PID a target well to the right (arc is fully right) and after lock the antenna marker is bouncing back and forth on the left side of the display (following where the left arc would be). Looks wrong as well.

When lock is dropped the antenna control returns to center divorced from throttle antenna elevation setting until moved. Suspect real radar either reverts to elevation throttle wheel setting or last known target elevation.

Target velocity vector should probably point straight up when in B-scope display and target velocity is purely radial.

Special modes deselect (unlock) stick button jumps TDC to zero bearing (center of VTB, but no alteration to vertical position on the display)... weird and unhelpful.

Add to the list a small (pure visual) missing indication :

The VOR, BEARING and CAP warning flags on the IDN (HSI) have small indications on each flag (a small needle, a double needle and the CAP indication), so the pilot doesn't have to memorize them . See here https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMF5YHk6JeYTo7tC6pF2GzsdjWKi7FVRapcoElfm4jIbK1iihsu5wkQPtYdbeLvcA?key=SHZ3czJNYVNaRnRZOHBYcWFwN0NEZUFWQm40eVl3

Nice photos

OK, photo and video makes clear that antenna control is not a wheel at all. Absolute axis control shouldn't exist in DCS.

Did you happen to touch the +- knob in the lower-left corner of HSI? I strongly suspect that it is spring-loaded like a doorknob instead of free turning.

This time in PIC

OK, photo and video makes clear that antenna control is not a wheel at all. Absolute axis control shouldn't exist in DCS.

 

Did you happen to touch the +- knob in the lower-left corner of HSI? I strongly suspect that it is spring-loaded like a doorknob instead of free turning.

The photos and videos are not mine but from a fellow member (can't remember his user name, I think it was posted in the hardware section).

Just for your information i have posted several pictures from a Mirage 2000EG and -5 . Have played too with the stick and the throttle but not with the IND, because it was removed for maintenance

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120580&highlight=Tanagra&page=189

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120580&highlight=Tanagra&page=191

I have a different posts-per-page setting than you so I can't follow those links properly. To me those threads are only 64 pages.