Jump to content

It's that time again... Mirage 2000-5F please!?


Hodo
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, jojo said:

As a summary, there is nothing wrong with wanting a Fox 3 shooter Mirage 2000-5F. It would be a different way to do air defense but still with a Mirage 2000 airframe.

But the problem for Razbam is access to data.

Jet fighters aren't designed for our personal entertainment in the first place. These are sensitive matters, and Mirage 2000-5F is still a first line air defense asset for France.

 

Mirage 2000C is a fine Fox 1 shooter in his own right.

Yes a Fox 1 shooter is more dependent on team work and this is up to you. Playing lone wolf is more difficult.

 

On the other hand, the Mirage 2000C has never been intended or put in front of NATO Fox 3 shooters.

So blame the mission designer if it's the case.

On some PvP server the M-2000C is put as a substitute to full fidelity red fighters. So you know what you're going into.

 

I think that PvE are better for historical context missions, and you would probably find that kind of action inside virtual squadrons.

 

The only way out would be a true dynamic campaign like-the-other-sim-we-are-not-allowed-to-talk-about.

 

The 2 forces are fighting with what they have, no matter what. And you just jump inside to take a slot and maybe customize mission and payload.

 

You are on point. I would rather have well-polished, well done 2000C than 2000-5 with a lot less realism due to sensitive information.

 

And i think that 2000C will get some buddies to play along with - there will be MiG-23MLA and full MiG-29A at some point also. So there will be, along with MiG-21, some more red jets that are in the same time bracket. Since dynamic campaign is being worked on, that can also help. But even the weather update changed a lot. Suddenly dropping bombs on INS waypoints is very useful in IFR, feature that wasn't so much prominent before.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

But even the weather update changed a lot. Suddenly dropping bombs on INS waypoints is very useful in IFR, feature that wasn't so much prominent before.  

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
If you are enabling the INS drift (no embedded GPS on Mirage 2000C), you will have to put eyes on target or initial point to be able to attack 😉

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile / M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jojo said:

 

I'm not sure I'm following you here.
If you are enabling the INS drift (no embedded GPS on Mirage 2000C), you will have to put eyes on target or initial point to be able to attack 😉

Yeah, you have to reset that piece of... gyros before. But if you can do a fix in some cloud opening, then you are able to deliver goods with an acceptable amount of collateral damage even in the soup. 😉 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/15/2021 at 8:28 PM, Fairey Gannet said:

If I could buy 2000-5, of course I would, because I love Mirage planes. F1 is on my list as well. But I think I know why C can be sometimes a bit frustrating at the first glance. DCS, as a simulation, fails in some aspects to recreate the bigger picture. Yes, 2000C lacks in A2G, but in reality SEPECAT Jaguar would do the heavy lifting in ground pounding, 2000C would be cover and support to a degree. But we don't have Jags... Radar is not that flashy, but the GCI would do vectoring to intercept, putting 2000's in best position to attack. Same as MiG-19's and 21's in that respect. We don't have complex vectoring... And main enemy 2000C would tangle with at that time was MiG-27 and early variants of 29 like 9.12. So there is some pairity, but not many birds from 1977-1990 right now. I mean - not many variants, using F-16 Bloc 50 without some weapons is not equivalent of F-16 Bloc 5.

 

I think F-16's, 18's and other modules people consider to be more capable are actually less context-sensitive. You can do more with the airframe yourself, and you don't need to rely on external features. And some of those features are lacking at the moment. I know there will be overhaul of those implemented, but as it is now, M2k can't be utilised to its full potential, as well as other dedicated interceptors. Not to mention, that actual work they should do is clipping bombers, and servers are rarely including such scenarios. Not to mention, only thing that matters in most servers is kill count, not objective completion. You don't get points for stopping bombers or forcing them to drop and bug out - and that would be an operational success. I know that also can change with dynamic campaign. And I hope for that! 🙂

Agree that dynamic campaign could help solve the problem we have with much of DCS which is a lack of era and context.  I doubt ED can truly build the type of DC that the other … did.   We can hope but keep in mind it took this long to get synced clouds and yet they still don’t actually move …

On 6/16/2021 at 9:59 PM, Fairey Gannet said:

 

You are on point. I would rather have well-polished, well done 2000C than 2000-5 with a lot less realism due to sensitive information.

 

And i think that 2000C will get some buddies to play along with - there will be MiG-23MLA and full MiG-29A at some point also. So there will be, along with MiG-21, some more red jets that are in the same time bracket. Since dynamic campaign is being worked on, that can also help. But even the weather update changed a lot. Suddenly dropping bombs on INS waypoints is very useful in IFR, feature that wasn't so much prominent before.  

Please don’t tease Mig29A 🙂 much needed… although I’d rather have the G model! Mirage was a beast in the 80s scenarios

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, USA_Recon said:

Agree that dynamic campaign could help solve the problem we have with much of DCS which is a lack of era and context.  I doubt ED can truly build the type of DC that the other … did.   We can hope but keep in mind it took this long to get synced clouds and yet they still don’t actually move …

Please don’t tease Mig29A 🙂 much needed… although I’d rather have the G model! Mirage was a beast in the 80s scenarios

True.  I have been loving the Mirage on the Syria at War server... Where they limit the tech to 1988.  No spammrams, limit of 2 aim-54s for a Tomcat.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2021 at 4:42 PM, USA_Recon said:

Agree that dynamic campaign could help solve the problem we have with much of DCS which is a lack of era and context.  I doubt ED can truly build the type of DC that the other … did.   We can hope but keep in mind it took this long to get synced clouds and yet they still don’t actually move …

Please don’t tease Mig29A 🙂 much needed… although I’d rather have the G model! Mirage was a beast in the 80s scenarios

We will see, but things are moving into the right direction for dynamic campaign. As for the MiG-29G... Well, that was codename for 9.12 (A) used by Germany. Granted, they had an upgrade in the 90's to make them meet NATO standards, and the engines were tuned down to extend their rather short lifespan... But it is the same version. As Russian Federation has a law prohibiting gathering information about military equipement on their soil, all models used by USSR/Federation alone are off the plate. But A variant, as well as G were (and still are) operated abroad, so devs can gather info about them. I don't think I saw G mentioned, sadly, but it is not impossible, technically at least. If it be worth time and effort to put another version in the pack - that is another story. 🙂

 


Edited by Fairey Gannet
Typos, little modification of text.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 3:34 PM, Fairey Gannet said:

We will see, but things are moving into the right direction for dynamic campaign. As for the MiG-29G... Well, that was codename for 9.12 (A) used by Germany. Granted, they had an upgrade in the 90's to make them meet NATO standards, and the engines were tuned down to extend their rather short lifespan... But it is the same version. As Russian Federation has a law prohibiting gathering information about military equipement on their soil, all models used by USSR/Federation alone are off the plate. But A variant, as well as G were (and still are) operated abroad, so devs can gather info about them. I don't think I saw G mentioned, sadly, but it is not impossible, technically at least. If it be worth time and effort to put another version in the pack - that is another story. 🙂

 

 

 

The MiG 29 9.12A was the export variant, supposed to be slightly downgraded.

I have seen some claims that some export countries received the same stock MiG-29 9.12 as USSR, but I don't know if this is true ? 🤔

  • Like 1

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile / M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jojo said:

 

The MiG 29 9.12A was the export variant, supposed to be slightly downgraded.

I have seen some claims that some export countries received the same stock MiG-29 9.12 as USSR, but I don't know if this is true ? 🤔

Yes, there is some variety in nomenclature. 9.12A was Warsaw Pact, but non-Soviet version, with downgraded radar (2 out of 5 modes) and IFF, with E-502-20/04 Turkus datalink. NATO called it either Fulcrum-A or Mig-29A to point out first generation of 29's. 9.12 was Soviet wariant with N019 Rubin radar, 5 radar modes and E-502-20 Bierioza datalink. Now, 9.12B was another export version, but it was for non-Warsaw Pact states, lacking IFF, datalink and having downgraded radar. That thing was called MiG-29B, but it was not formal, and in the West only. Instead, Fulcrum-B was pinned on MiG-29UB (9.51), trainer tandem without radar. So yeah, in the West A was used either for 9.12A or for 9.12, 9.12A and 912.B... 

That is why I referred to 9.12 with (A), just for safety reasons. I am unsure what 29 we will get down the road, but because that law I mentioned I assume it can be 9.12A. If they will happen to lay hands on 9.12 outside of that restrictions... maybe. But it will be Fulcrum-A regardless. 🙂

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

Yes, there is some variety in nomenclature. 9.12A was Warsaw Pact, but non-Soviet version, with downgraded radar (2 out of 5 modes) and IFF, with E-502-20/04 Turkus datalink. NATO called it either Fulcrum-A or Mig-29A to point out first generation of 29's. 9.12 was Soviet wariant with N019 Rubin radar, 5 radar modes and E-502-20 Bierioza datalink. Now, 9.12B was another export version, but it was for non-Warsaw Pact states, lacking IFF, datalink and having downgraded radar. That thing was called MiG-29B, but it was not formal, and in the West only. Instead, Fulcrum-B was pinned on MiG-29UB (9.51), trainer tandem without radar. So yeah, in the West A was used either for 9.12A or for 9.12, 9.12A and 912.B... 

That is why I referred to 9.12 with (A), just for safety reasons. I am unsure what 29 we will get down the road, but because that law I mentioned I assume it can be 9.12A. If they will happen to lay hands on 9.12 outside of that restrictions... maybe. But it will be Fulcrum-A regardless. 🙂

 

 

 

Thank you for the summary.
But the my question rather if a country like East Germany was considered close enough to get 9.12 instead of 9.12A ? 😇

  • Like 1

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI GTX 1080Ti Gaming X/ RAM 32 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Saitek X-55 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Rift S

M-2000C X-55 VR profile / M-2000C custom SERVAL symbols assignation

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, jojo said:

 

Thank you for the summary.
But the my question rather if a country like East Germany was considered close enough to get 9.12 instead of 9.12A ? 😇

From what I managed to dig out - no. Historically, USSR satellite states were given "internal export" version by a general rule, so the middle shelf goodies. 😉 But there were Soviet bases in those countries anyway, and they were more of an enclave, with Russian personnel, administration, shops and supporting towns sometimes. Some of them were made public in 1992 or 1993 - until then they were not even marked on maps. Such bases could have Soviet-tier equipement, that would compliment more basic models of given satellite state. Also, Ukraine and Belarus for example had status of SSR, but for example Czechoslovakia or Poland - did not. I could not find any specifics on verisons of 29 they did use, but they probably could have something better in Soviet-era. But, that was general rule and there could be exceptions, so I stand to be corrected, and I will be happy if somebody will point out, that my info is low quality! 🙂

After 1992 however, some of variants, that were not part of Warsaw Pact and non-Warsaw Pact export stock could surface... Myanmar has some 9.13's, more modern variants were sighted in Syria as well. Algieria uses 9.13S version, Peru has 9.13SE, Belarus upgraded recently some up to BM standard... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, jojo said:

 

I have seen some claims that some export countries received the same stock MiG-29 9.12 as USSR, but I don't know if this is true ? 🤔

 

Cant say - according to someone who flew the MiG-29G for two years on exchange they had the full up Soviet radar for example. (East Germany being on the front might have been an exception)

 

The engines were not detuned as such - there is a switch that the ground crew can set to put the engines in one of three modes (also in the flight manual). They generally had them on the lower power setting to increase lifetime but obviously whacked them up to full power for deployments to do DACT etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oui nous avons Besoin d'un mirage qui fasse concurrence à tous ces F16, F/A-18, etc qui en sont, et pas des moindre, une technologie bien supérieure..... vous pouvez dial pendant des heures mais nous avons besoin que cette magnifique configuration A/S soit étendue. je comprends tout à fait ce post de aux-secours qui dénote de la frustration de certains aux manques de missiles à technologie bien plus supérieure dans le game. Ou alors lors des créations de missions, campagnes et mise en ligne serveur, il faudrait être plus attentif à une harmonisation des groupes utilisés (époque équivalente).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be great if DCS could prevent anachronistic configurations according to the date of the flight.

 

Modules developers would just have to set availability date to each systems/weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 9:15 PM, [TF-108] Aero said:

The real reason is because they already have enough on their plate already.  Let's at least wait until the next couple big updates for the Mirage or released.

 

The real reason is that most systems and weapons related to the 5F and Mk2 etc are still classified and will most probably remain so for some time, when you think that the Pakistanese DoD managed to get images of the firing envelop of an old model AIM-9 and their Mirage III off the internet, it's easy to see why.

 

There is absolutely no structural differences between the C and the other 2000 single seaters, appart for extra hard points and systems they are identical, so developers would have the choice in giving us a "fake" 2000-5F or not at all, as Jojo pointed out rightly, access to Data is the issue, considering how close to real life the 2000C is, a fake 2000-5F would be disapointing.

 

BTW, when it comes to accuracy, when you read some F-16 jockey complaining about the flight envelop of the 2000C (draging more than in real life according to some pilots btw), and yet happy to pull whatever number of G they like in transonic and assymetric configuration (-1 AIM-120 on one side) you're allowed to laugh.

 

A good thing developers neglected to simulate the characteristics of the Viper in this region of its flight envelop and configuration, we would see some funny loss of Control, and Yaw Departure, but eh, this is only a game isn't it?

MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX 7B86vHB1(Beta version) BIOS, AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB, 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 CL14, Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS HOTAS. My G2 is DEAD, I'll get VR again when headsets will be better.

M-2000C. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. MiG-29 "Fulcrum". 

Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TMor said:

It would be great if DCS could prevent anachronistic configurations according to the date of the flight.

 

Modules developers would just have to set availability date to each systems/weapons.

 

I never use it but I'm 99% sure it's implemented. There is a date limit for each aircraft and weapon and you can set the date in the mission editor.


Edited by Kercheiz
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kercheiz said:

There is a date limit for each aircraft and weapon and you can set the date in the mission editor.

That is for aircraft and weapons, but I think @TMorwas talking about specific systems as well.  I don't think the anachronistic mode has an affect on systems other than having GPS or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 11:38 PM, TLTeo said:

I also doubt that the module most DCS player want is an upgraded version of an airframe that is already in the game. I suspect the return on investment on, say, the Strike Eagle, will be way way higher than a new Mirage 2000, even factoring in re-using the external model and FM.

 

It's for this reason that I'd much prefer a 2000D if we're going to beg for any new Mirages, but as has been said already Razbam's plenty busy and we're of course at the mercy of the AdA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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