DCS Mirage 2000 politically sensitive question
-
Yes, the flight model is made by a real MiG-21 pilot, Novak Djordjijevic. http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/team/
(I do not want to talk about M-21’s FM relevance over BMS one, this is not interesting me, but I would like to comment your statement … ) … It will sounds strange to your ears, but pilot’s comments on a FM are not necessarily the most objective one over technical data (but depending on specific cases, reversal is also true ) … My point is that ony pilots feedback do not makes a FM accurate … you necessarily need technical data.
I know what I am talking about because, on my a/c, we we already demonstrated with the real machine (something that was perfectly reproduced by the simulator and that we (the crew and pilots) claimed to be inaccurate) that pilot’s feeling and feedbacks could be biased be external parameters and in some case, are not objectives.
Pilots feedback are usually more relevant on avionics and systems stuff (sometimes even over RL documentation which are not always accurate not up-to-date)
As MavJP say,
participated to Falcon4 development … but you know how FM were inaccurate despite what was said (especially concerning a commercial product! )(Pete Bonanni) Most people don’t realize that Falcon 3.0 started as a low cost F-16 simulator for the Air National Guard. I worked with Gilman Louie, the current Chairman of MicroProse and the creator of the Falcon series, on a proposal to build an F-16 trainer. Spectrum-Holobyte was teamed with General Dynamics and another company called Perceptronics on the project and fortunately we lost the contract.
Tribute and cheers to “moustache man”!
[
](
) -
This post is deleted! -
I was simply answering Tulkas question with the fact that the flight model was made by a real pilot. No need to read between the lines because there’s nothing hidden in there. Not a single word was uttered about the accuracy of the flight model.
This is how I understood your post, do not worry.
I was just using it to illustrate that even RL pilots can be (in some case of subjects) biased by their feelings and interpretations which can be unexpected on our (simmers) side. Having a RL pilot (qualified on the machine) is greatly valuable of course, but does make everything. On BMS side we have several F-16 pilots (among other) , but without Mav-Jp’s code and data … BMS’s FM wouldn’t be the one we know.
-
BTW: if you compare the Mig-21bis DCS module FM with RL data, you will find that it is far less accurate than the BMS 4.33 Mig-21bis simple OFM
Really???
OMG!!!; What a bad luck has had Novac Djordjijevic throughout his careerLet’s take a particular feature: supersonic accelration @30,000ft with 1x490l CL tank, 4xAAM and 2,000kg of fuel at the start of the run. (Full A/B, special A/B regime is not available @FL300)
t=0.00" 400Kts IAS /M1.10
t=1’47’’ 651Kts IAS /M1.76
t=1’55’’ 659Kts IAS /M1.783IRL (from L-17 performance manual, L-17 being the name of the Mig-21bis iz75A in Croatian/Yougoslavian AF)
- t=1’47’’ 595Kts IAS / M1.62 (-56Kts / -0.14 Mach less)
- t=3’00’’ 622Kts IAS / M1.69 (and this is the absolute top speed in this configuration at this altitude in ISA condition)
You can call that an accurate FM if you want…
BTW the DCS module provide a great flight experience a very accurate pit and procedure wise, it’s a wonderful model.And yes, Flacon 4.0 1.05fr F-16 FM was even worse :mrgreen:
-
This post is deleted! -
Just some thoughts I wanted to jot down after reading this thread all my opinion of course.
IMHO
The comparison of BMS (non F16 based) Flight models to their real aircraft counterpart should be taken with a grain of salt.
As I understand it the programmers are able to base the other flight models after available RW data but the Flight Control System is still based off of the F16 due to the simulation so the actual performance will be off a bit from the real thing.
Ok this is no problem, this is an F16 simulation that boasts it’s flight modeling based on real world data and real world F16 Pilot consultation during the original development of Falcon and continual development of BMS.I am not in the know other than what the developers post here but i’m quite sure that the level of fidelity put into the F16 is not matched in the other flight models so again comparing BMSs additional flight models to the real thing or other simulations that base their flight models off of the real thing might not be the best comparison. Enjoy the additional flight models, be happy we have them and expect them to improve as further updates*…come out.
Now for DCS
DCS is not a non profit organization so they are going to operate based on the bottom line. They need cash flow and they will do what it takes to get that cash flow. Right now it appears that based on their new DCS world update and Nevada they have gotten the message concerning their current scenery/performance and the ability to expand down the road. This seems like a huge move forward and opens the doors for other things.
This continual Beta release BS is simply getting the model out there to generate cash flow and an immediate return on investment which may be of some concern but I think it’s simply so they can then take that cash flow and use it to operate until the next Beta version comes out and repeat.
I’m guessing they have a small group that works behind the scenes getting these beta versions up to speed for the final release but not as important as generating the next new Beta model for sale. Remember once you have purchased the beta model the final version is yours for free so why use up manpower and resources for something that’s not going to net you any additional cash flow. They use the Beta release as a way to toss a model out there that may have some issues and then when you complain …hey it’s a beta release…you knew this when you purchased it…the final version will be out soon …
As far as the fidelity of the flight model I can’t comment as I don’t know which is to say that most don’t know either. If you aren’t a developer and know FOR A FACT what information they are using and how they are programming it…your comments are just opinions as are mine.
My biggest concern about DCS and the other flight models is how they all will play together in a campaign or Tactical Engagement Scenario.
There are many 3rd party developers making different aircraft for DCS and just how accurate are their flight models? So if we get into a PVP scenario and Joe Pilot is using the SU27 which defies the laws of physics, how does this play in a real world scenario? Same thing with the arcade like Radars and other things with some of the aircraft that is available?All models are not created equally nor does there seem to be a benchmark by Eagle Dynamics for doing so other than how much time, money and effort do the developers want to put into realism and real world flight characteristics…
This could be wrong I don’t know but it doesn’t seem that there is… even from the developers of DCS. Take a look at the F15 for example. A very big update performance wise from the original and we still have arcade avionics.I like the fact that DCS has all of these different flight models but I think down the road with the lack of fidelity put into some of these aircraft you are more than likely going to run into an issue of one model being far superior to another in performance and this isn’t necessarily the case in the real world. This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
I am not pro one or the other in this post, just some thoughts that maybe some in the know can comment or correct.
Thanks
Bill
-
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.I’m sorry but this just proves furthermore that you are the perfect target for a module like the mirage, little more than average casual simmer. Nothing wrong with it at all, just can’t take your answer in serious consideration.
-
I’m sorry but this just proves furthermore that you are the perfect target for a module like the mirage, little more than average casual simmer. Nothing wrong with it at all, just can’t take your answer in serious consideration.
Not once have you acknowledged the fact that the mirage was released in Alpha and since then a lot has changed, including the FM. Shuttle launches are a thing of the past. I’m not saying the FM is perfect. It is after all, repeatidly mentioned here, still in BETA. Mirrors aren’t even fully implemented, contrary to what you said. Avionics are being augmented, too.
Your initial criticism and downright hostility towards that module is simply based on outdated facts, let alone strongly biased.
And just because you find strong criticism in the DCS Mirage, masquerading as knowledge, doesn’t make you a hardcore simmer.
It makes you person that put down 50$ and hoped for more. -
I’m sorry but this just proves furthermore that you are the perfect target for a module like the mirage, little more than average casual simmer. Nothing wrong with it at all, just can’t take your answer in serious consideration.
I got the feeling you didn’t fully understood that you bought a not feature complete Beta module? As was already posted by others your feeling is very subjective and maybe you missed some if not all of the recent changes to FM components.
-
Not once have you acknowledged the fact that the mirage was released in Alpha and since then a lot has changed, including the FM. Shuttle launches are a thing of the past. I’m not saying the FM is perfect. It is after all, repeatidly mentioned here, still in BETA. Mirrors aren’t even fully implemented, contrary to what you said. Avionics are being augmented, too.
Your initial criticism and downright hostility towards that module is simply based on outdated facts, let alone strongly biased.
And just because you find strong criticism in the DCS Mirage, masquerading as knowledge, doesn’t make you a hardcore simmer.
It makes you person that put down 50$ and hoped for more.I’m not gonna reply anymore, this topic served a purpose for the guy who started it. After all the answers he was able to make up his mind, and this should be all. Your signature pretty much explains the rest and you are making this an ED style topic.
-
Your persistant evasion of facts and the manifold replies you got in this thread explain far more than my signature could ever hope to.
You are being awfully obstinate towards any arguments not alligned with yours. -
@bill_3810:
Just some thoughts I wanted to jot down after reading this thread all my opinion of course.
IMHO
The comparison of BMS (non F16 based) Flight models to their real aircraft counterpart should be taken with a grain of salt.
As I understand it the programmers are able to base the other flight models after available RW data but the Flight Control System is still based off of the F16 due to the simulation so the actual performance will be off a bit from the real thing.
Ok this is no problem, this is an F16 simulation that boasts it’s flight modeling based on real world data and real world F16 Pilot consultation during the original development of Falcon and continual development of BMS.I am not in the know other than what the developers post here but i’m quite sure that the level of fidelity put into the F16 is not matched in the other flight models so again comparing BMSs additional flight models to the real thing or other simulations that base their flight models off of the real thing might not be the best comparison. Enjoy the additional flight models, be happy we have them and expect them to improve as further updates*…come out.
Now for DCS
DCS is not a non profit organization so they are going to operate based on the bottom line. They need cash flow and they will do what it takes to get that cash flow. Right now it appears that based on their new DCS world update and Nevada they have gotten the message concerning their current scenery/performance and the ability to expand down the road. This seems like a huge move forward and opens the doors for other things.
This continual Beta release BS is simply getting the model out there to generate cash flow and an immediate return on investment which may be of some concern but I think it’s simply so they can then take that cash flow and use it to operate until the next Beta version comes out and repeat.
I’m guessing they have a small group that works behind the scenes getting these beta versions up to speed for the final release but not as important as generating the next new Beta model for sale. Remember once you have purchased the beta model the final version is yours for free so why use up manpower and resources for something that’s not going to net you any additional cash flow. They use the Beta release as a way to toss a model out there that may have some issues and then when you complain …hey it’s a beta release…you knew this when you purchased it…the final version will be out soon …
As far as the fidelity of the flight model I can’t comment as I don’t know which is to say that most don’t know either. If you aren’t a developer and know FOR A FACT what information they are using and how they are programming it…your comments are just opinions as are mine.
My biggest concern about DCS and the other flight models is how they all will play together in a campaign or Tactical Engagement Scenario.
There are many 3rd party developers making different aircraft for DCS and just how accurate are their flight models? So if we get into a PVP scenario and Joe Pilot is using the SU27 which defies the laws of physics, how does this play in a real world scenario? Same thing with the arcade like Radars and other things with some of the aircraft that is available?All models are not created equally nor does there seem to be a benchmark by Eagle Dynamics for doing so other than how much time, money and effort do the developers want to put into realism and real world flight characteristics…
This could be wrong I don’t know but it doesn’t seem that there is… even from the developers of DCS. Take a look at the F15 for example. A very big update performance wise from the original and we still have arcade avionics.I like the fact that DCS has all of these different flight models but I think down the road with the lack of fidelity put into some of these aircraft you are more than likely going to run into an issue of one model being far superior to another in performance and this isn’t necessarily the case in the real world. This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
I am not pro one or the other in this post, just some thoughts that maybe some in the know can comment or correct.
Thanks
Bill
The FLCS has nothing to do with the 2D data / i.e performance data. This is 100% indepenant.
what Topolo means is that if the FM does not match real Performances, this is pointless to even think about FLCS accuracy.
The importance is always the SAME
FIRST : Performances in term of Accel / decel / Turn Rate / Energy management
SECOND : Pitch / roll / yaw handling => this is where FLCS plays a role.If one FM miss the FIRST point, the SECOND one is useless…
What TOPOLO says is that for Performances, BMS OFM are better modeled
-
@bill_3810:
This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
this is complete URBAN LEGEND STOP SPREADING IT !!
Take A10_AFM in BMS, this does not share a single line of code with F16 flight model. This is a complete Non FLy By wire modeled with local computation, while F16 is Global Computation with Loockeed MArtin FLCS !!!
F18 next iteration will feature a dedicated F18 FLCS
-
Now for DCS
@bill_3810:
This continual Beta release BS is simply getting the model out there to generate cash flow and an immediate return on investment which may be of some concern but I think it’s simply so they can then take that cash flow and use it to operate until the next Beta version comes out and repeat.
Indeed this is a valid concern, but keep in mind the community they do this for. The amount of work put into a full fidelity aircraft vs. the cash you get from potential buyers is in no relation to, for example, Call of Duty.
I dare say they have no other choice to financially survive. Consider roughly 3 years of developing or even more, without seeing a penny. (This is BTW why I am humbled even more by folks from BMS or team fusion. they never see any monitary reward).@bill_3810:
I’m guessing they have a small group that works behind the scenes getting these beta versions up to speed for the final release but not as important as generating the next new Beta model for sale. Remember once you have purchased the beta model the final version is yours for free so why use up manpower and resources for something that’s not going to net you any additional cash flow. They use the Beta release as a way to toss a model out there that may have some issues and then when you complain …hey it’s a beta release…you knew this when you purchased it…the final version will be out soon …
Well yea. it IS beta. Don’t buy a Ford and hope for a Ferrari. simple as that.
A lot people actually don’t buy the stuff until it’s out of Beta.
3rd party devs mostly are little teams of maybe a dozen or so employees, maybe less, maybe more. My personal opinion is that some bugs and errors take an exceptional amount of time to eradicate, even find in the first place. IMHO if that cash keeps them above water to further work on the module past beta, which contrary to popular belief they actually do, then by all means, take the cash before you shut down and are forever lost as a hope for a module that never will be.@bill_3810:
My biggest concern about DCS and the other flight models is how they all will play together in a campaign or Tactical Engagement Scenario.
There are many 3rd party developers making different aircraft for DCS and just how accurate are their flight models? So if we get into a PVP scenario and Joe Pilot is using the SU27 which defies the laws of physics,How so?
@bill_3810:Same thing with the arcade like Radars and other things with some of the aircraft that is available?
Though few people actually know of the real life capabilities of the Radars, including me, i wouldn’t call it arcade like. Stuff like beaming to lose lock (against m2k) or ground and weather clutter in the fishbed seem rather realistic, though again, I wouldn’t know.
@bill_3810:
Nor does there seem to be a benchmark by Eagle Dynamics
They actually do have one. Not every dev is permitted to create modules. And EFMs (External flight modules, FMs created by 3rd party devs to match or come CLOSE to the AFM from ED) are scrutinized by ED as well.
@bill_3810:
I like the fact that DCS has all of these different flight models but I think down the road with the lack of fidelity put into some of these aircraft you are more than likely going to run into an issue of one model being far superior to another in performance and this isn’t necessarily the case in the real world. This could be argued in BMS as well but again BMS is an F16 simulation, not a simulation for anything and everything.
Exactly, so who is to say those AA encounters over Korea with soviet AI jets are close to the real world if it is only a handful of airframes that BMS models accurately.
While indeed I share your concerns to a certain degree, I wouldn’t go so far as saying that the avarage FM could differ widely from real life. And even if that were the case. Once the FM is out there, it is not written in stone. It can be changed.
I for one am far more concerned with the overall balance of airframes. Right now we only have 4th gen fighters and WWII warbirds from BOTH sides that are modelled. Su27/F15, P51/Fw190, etc).
The m2k is good step in the right direction, but unless we see the F4 phantom or skyhawk anytime soon, the MiG21 will always be the underdog compared to the SU27 or F15/F18. No matter how accurate all those FMs are. -
this is complete URBAN LEGEND STOP SPREADING IT !!
Take A10_AFM in BMS, this does not share a single line of code with F16 flight model. This is a complete Non FLy By wire modeled with local computation, while F16 is Global Computation with Loockeed MArtin FLCS !!!
F18 next iteration will feature a dedicated F18 FLCS
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
-
@bill_3810:
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
I think the point to be taken is that F-16 being primary or not has nothing to do with the fidelity of other aircraft modeled in BMS. Unless other sims have access to classified documents that are unavailable to BMS, BMS is likely the closest to RW flight characteristics than any other.
-
-
@bill_3810:
Nice to hear but the name is still BMS 4.33 and it is still an F16 Simulation as Primary
BMS means Benchmarksims.
There is a reason why this is not falcon 4.33 but BMS 4.33yes primary AC is F16 but that does not mean all the code is f16 oriented.
This is especially true for fm code
-
-
Thanks for all the replies and discussion guys. In the end I havent’t bought and will not buy the 2000 in the foreseeable future (unless they have a 70% discount).
Most of all, I am glad to see how constantly amazing this forum is, and the Falcon community in general. A thread like this would have been censored, locked and people banned in a matter of hours (or minutes) on the ED boards.
Great inputs by Topolo.
Thanks.