DCS Mirage 2000 politically sensitive question
-
I have the model and i strongly suggest you to avoid it, it’s nothing more than a FC3 model with clickable cockpit and crappy missiles. The flight model is comparable to FSX aircrafts, not a10c or bms quality. Also the developers are more focused in releasing things like fake mirrors rather than INS or flight model improvements. Fun-wise, you can pretty much fly it like a space shuttle launch on a 90 degree vertical climb until you hit 75.000 feet and stall then rinse and repeat. If you are into this kind of stuff go for it, otherwise save your money for something decent…
-
Thanks for the replies so far… seems like I will skip it for now. My gut feeling + your replies don’t leave too many doubts in my head
I’m not french and not a fan of the Mirage as much as I am a fan of the F-16 and a few other airframes, but I’m interested in pretty much anything that flies, and the 2000 is a sexy beast…If there was a credible representation I would throw money at the screen, but too many doubts are surrounding the source info and the developer so far. -
Have you looked at the ED A10c? I have owned since beta in 2008 and still enjoy it, more so in Nevada. Just got the Red Flag Hog campaign too. There’s an excellent bundle price this weekend.
http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2016-02-05_A-10C-RF_DCS2.0.1/
-
The flight model is comparable to FSX aircrafts, not a10c or bms quality.
There is room for subjective opinions on how appealing/non-appealing this module is, and you are welcome to them and to share them freely. I respect that!
But the above is objectively, technically, and demonstrably false. I assume/hope it is made out of naiveness rather than maliciousness …
-
I thought it was pretty obvious that the BMS data was for the flight manual charts and it’s not too hard to believe to reinforce their FM data. It’s a source of pride to be among the references.
The initial performance on introduction was bananas though. It was impossible to believe that the real thing really did 200-500 knots in a few seconds like it did. It practically supercruised. I flew with people that practically were fellating themselves over it (just like they did with the BMS F-18 performance), eye roll worthy. The patch made more reasonable the low AOA performance (which had 0 drag at 0 AOA apparently) while improving the high AOA performance (I trust them, it was pretty barn door-ish). And I think stores’ drag got an overhaul too. It should be much better now but systems wise it’s like the ill-fated Enterprise from the beginning of Star Trek Generations, it’s going to be installed Tuesday. Lots and lots of stuff isn’t bolted in yet. And they aren’t modeling the full (gasp 8 minutes!) INS align time because they fear their ADHD audience won’t stand for it.
Missile issues are going to take forever to fix because their Soviet supplier (ED) has to be beaten over the head with proof before they will change the shared asset performance.
-
There is room for subjective opinions on how appealing/non-appealing this module is, and you are welcome to them and to share them freely. I respect that!
But the above is objectively, technically, and demonstrably false. I assume/hope it is made out of naiveness rather than maliciousness …
No maliciousness at all, just many many years of flight simulation and 50 dollars wasted on an arcade module… Unfortunately that’s what the mirage is, no need to demonstrate anything. But i’m going off topic here, of course everything i write is based on my own experience, i hope i was able to stop someone wasting money like i did.
-
i hope i was able to stop someone wasting money like i did.
Fair enough. Though I can personally vouch for the quality of the DCS A10C.
-
Fair enough. Though I can personally vouch for the quality of the DCS A10C.
I do have the A-10C and pretty much every other DCS module except Fw-190 and Me-109.
I have to say the A-10 is IMO still the best aircraft they’ve made, while others have been a disappointment most of all for the never ending “beta” status and undeveloped features.
DCS is a decent sim, unfortunately it’s totally lacking any realism in the BVR department. ED are extremely hard of hearing and touchy when it comes to criticism, but for the most part in the FM department they do a good job. Problem is, their protectionism extends also to the 3rd party devs which are sometimes not on par in terms of quality and resources with ED, and that’s why I’m ending up having this discussion: because I can’t trust their official approval on a 3rd party module. -
The DCS A-10C is absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, amazing on every single count, from flight modeling to systems modeling to immersion! It is my go-to sim when I want the modern A2G experience.
However, there are other modules that are in the same best-of-class class in both authenticity/fidelity and immersion: the P-51D Mustang, FW-190, ME-108, F-86F, Mig-19, the Huey UH1H, the Ka-50, Mig-21, Mi-28 etc.
I recognize that this platforms/systems may not float your boat, but different strokes for different folks and all that. The point is, if you want these platforms/systems/eras, DCS nails it.
Apart from the tactical part, honestly just the pure experience of virtual flying is worth it for any of these modules, for the feel/immersion/skill (low and fast down tree-filled canyons), but the tactical experiences themselves are amazing as long as you accept the contexts (i.e., no taking the P-15D against the Mig-19, or while you can blow up things with the Huey, there is as much enjoyment in just mastery of the flight, navigation, timings, both under and not under fire, etc.)For modern systems management A2A, BMS rules. The DCS A2A environment with its simplified/arcade IFF does not do it for me. One look at your scope and you know who are the bad guys. Couple it with the fact that the AI’s radiate all the time, and you can usually tell the dangerous bad guys from the not-so-dangerous bad guys. Target sorting is an integral part of the A2A challenge, and BMS offers that in spades. The increase in taskload coming to BMS from other DCS A2A simplifications (such as not needing or being able to uncage/cool heater seeker heads) were an eye-opener of me when I learned about. As were the much nastier missiles, both AA and SAM’s!
Shame, because the F-15C is a sweet platform, and the Su-27(30KK/etc.) is easily the most beautiful single-seat fighter aircraft ever built … but I find it difficult to get into them now having started on the path of learning to manage a real A2A radar platform (BMS Falcon).
BUT for me, for A2G stuff, at the moment the DCA A-10C rules! But this is a platform thing rather than a sim/game thing. This is due to the MUCH better ergonomics of the A-10C for this (IMHO), rather than any difference in the DCS/BMS sim. I find the F-16 approach to LGB deployment irritating compared to the A-10. But you want to know what seals the deal for A-10C A2G? One word: “Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!” Admittedly, once you get away from a permissive environment and stack in significant SAM and opposition aerial threats things get a lot more challenging a lot more quickly in the A-10C than the F-16, but, again, that is more due to platform rather than the sim qualities.
Of course, all this is neither here nor there with respect to the module that is supposedly the focus of this thread, i.e. the M2000C.
I have this module and I love it. But I would agree with those who say not to buy it yet if you are hoping that this will be a module you want to get into immediately. Wait till it is completed, and then see what folks think. The developers have set themselves the goal of a full high-fidelity flight and systems model, and while you will hear rabid/fanatical speculation on both sides on whether they will or will not deliver it, truth is nobody can say till it is done. Right now, in its pre-release state, it is great for WVR guns and short-range heaters against the Mig-21 and flying down canyons. Both are fun, but while the flight and relevant systems are realistically modeled, going up against a Mig-21 in sterile A2A “arenas” using just guns and heaters probably does not qualify as realistic modern combat aviation simulation experience that you might be looking for. For that, stick to BMS. Or the A-10C. Or the Ka-50.
-
If you want a nice fun mud mover, I’d suggest someone model up an accurate Night Attack Harrier. Not the radar one - the Night Attack one…only one I’d be interested in over an A-10. And an easier, less expensive cockpit to build too; if you’re into that.
-
Fair enough. Though I can personally vouch for the quality of the DCS A10C.
Oh same here, i fell in love with the a10 a long time ago and it’s my favourite plane along with the f16, hell i bought a TM Warthog just for it! My criticism is only towards the mirage 2000. This is also why i’m sad, a company that developed a module like the a10c should set it as a reference for third party developers. Well maybe not moneywise and since you start a company to make money….
-
Many people share many things and copy many things and improve on them. This is just how everything works. No one is going to start from scratch all the way when so much information is already out there. That would be detrimental in many ways. Ofcourse i don’t think he plagiarized in terms of copy it word for word but to take inspiration or help or ask people for permission is quite common
-
I have the model and i strongly suggest you to avoid it, it’s nothing more than a FC3 model with clickable cockpit and crappy missiles. The flight model is comparable to FSX aircrafts, not a10c or bms quality. Also the developers are more focused in releasing things like fake mirrors rather than INS or flight model improvements. Fun-wise, you can pretty much fly it like a space shuttle launch on a 90 degree vertical climb until you hit 75.000 feet and stall then rinse and repeat. If you are into this kind of stuff go for it, otherwise save your money for something decent…
seems to me you haven’t flown in weeks.
If this were December, your criticism would be somewhat viable, however, it’s coming along quite nicely, including the avionics, the missile flight models and the m2k flight model.
The last patch just came out a couple of days ago.and by the way, that shuttle thing never worked in a 90° climb. Also you needed a clean config and almost empty fuel tanks. Then yes, it would accelerate in a climb. But that is because oth the t/w ratio.
In any case, they fixed that.In short, your advice is terribly useless and inaccurate.
-
No maliciousness at all, just many many years of flight simulation and 50 dollars wasted on an arcade module… Unfortunately that’s what the mirage is, no need to demonstrate anything. But i’m going off topic here, of course everything i write is based on my own experience, i hope i was able to stop someone wasting money like i did.
You do know what a beta is, right? Likely to be incomplete and have bugs? Maybe you should wait for things to come out of beta with an attitude like that. Or maybe just write your own flight sim and show us all how it’s done.
-
and by the way, that shuttle thing never worked in a 90° climb. Also you needed a clean config and almost empty fuel tanks. Then yes, it would accelerate in a climb. But that is because oth the t/w ratio.
Maybe I didn’t understood correctly your post (?), but … A Thrust/Weight ratio > 1 doesn’t mean necessarily that you can accelerate on a 90° climb.
-
You do know what a beta is, right? Likely to be incomplete and have bugs? Maybe you should wait for things to come out of beta with an attitude like that. Or maybe just write your own flight sim and show us all how it’s done.
from Wikipedia…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
Alpha
The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[2]Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version. In general, external availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software, while open source software often has publicly available alpha versions. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature complete.
Beta
Beta, named after the second letter of the Greek alphabet, is the software development phase following alpha. Software in the beta stage is also known as betaware.[3] Beta phase generally begins when the software is feature complete but likely to contain a number of known or unknown bugs.[4] Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software, as well as speed/performance issues and may still cause crashes or data loss. The focus of beta testing is reducing impacts to users, often incorporating usability testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release and this is typically the first time that the software is available outside of the organization that developed it. Beta version software is often useful for demonstrations and previews within an organization and to prospective customers. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, preview release, prototype, technical preview / technology preview (TP),[5] or early access. […]so…basically your statement is incorrect while referring to beta state of a software…however this is not a fault of razbam…this is a fault of ED…and unfortunately the tendency is to release always alpha-wards software camouflaged by beta “statuses” without any idea of leadtime towards completeness…
-
You do know what a beta is, right? Likely to be incomplete and have bugs? Maybe you should wait for things to come out of beta with an attitude like that. Or maybe just write your own flight sim and show us all how it’s done.
It s funny that you feel offended by my impressions on your module, it’s a perfect example of the completely wrong mentality that you have. I should feel offended, because it’s MY 50 dollars that are now in YOUR pocket, not the other way around… My reply was to a topic written in a forum where people fly with high quality simulators, not fancy graphics toys with fantasy flight models, and sadly you can’t deny that this is actually the truth. Here on BMS quality standards are high, and they don’t even charge you money for it. Draw your own conclusion and keep blaming “my attitude” and taking it personally, this is certainly not gonna improve that hobbyist model that the 2000c is.
-
It s funny that you feel offended by my impressions on your module, it’s a perfect example of the completely wrong mentality that you have. I should feel offended, because it’s MY 50 dollars that are now in YOUR pocket, not the other way around… My reply was to a topic written in a forum where people fly with high quality simulators, not fancy graphics toys with fantasy flight models, and sadly you can’t deny that this is actually the truth. Here on BMS quality standards are high, and they don’t even charge you money for it. Draw your own conclusion and keep blaming “my attitude” and taking it personally, this is certainly not gonna improve that hobbyist model that the 2000c is.
I dont have your money buddy. I didn’t write the Mirage and I have no affiliation with Razbam. I enjoy many in progress aircraft in either BMS or DCS. Let’s not pretend all the aircraft in either game are perfect.
-
Maybe I didn’t understood correctly your post (?), but … A Thrust/Weight ratio > 1 doesn’t mean necessarily that you can accelerate on a 90° climb.
Just noted my error.
You Are right of course -
It s funny that you feel offended by my impressions on your module, it’s a perfect example of the completely wrong mentality that you have. I should feel offended, because it’s MY 50 dollars that are now in YOUR pocket, not the other way around… My reply was to a topic written in a forum where people fly with high quality simulators, not fancy graphics toys with fantasy flight models, and sadly you can’t deny that this is actually the truth. Here on BMS quality standards are high, and they don’t even charge you money for it. Draw your own conclusion and keep blaming “my attitude” and taking it personally, this is certainly not gonna improve that hobbyist model that the 2000c is.
The only thing that speaks the truth is the fact that you maybe only flew it upon release and then never again.
There is nothing fantasy about the flight model nowadays. Does it still need a bit tweaking? Maybe.
Quality standards over in DCS are just as high, maybe even more can be achieved, since their possibilities, money- and staff wise, are higher, but I wouldn’t know and wouldn’t want to downplay BMS achievements.
DCS 2.0 is just in it’s infancy. Sure, BMS has been around for a while and they do nothing but the most from what they have, but to dismiss the quality of DCS, simply because you’re more of a BMS fanboy is foolish. To ignore the fact that the m2K was released in alpha further shows the errors in your thinking.