DCS Mirage 2000 politically sensitive question
-
Hello guys, first off, please feel free to move this thread where more appropriate or even reply via PM.
I’m writing here because this is a place where there can be an open conversation (unlike ED forums with their banning-spree mods).
I received word from members of a small virtual squadron that flies BMS, and tried the Mirage 2000 by razbam, that the M2000’s FM is a sort of copy/paste of the Mirage’s FM in BMS.
Since this is a 60$ addon that I was looking to buy, this info makes me doubt a lot about my purchase, and razbam’s credibility in developing such aircraft.Question is: do you think this rumor is true? Is the M2000 FM in BMS good enough that even if Razbam “took” it from here, it would reasonably represent the real aircraft?
Any one has this module and wants to chime in?Thanks!
-
It’s total nonsense. They’ll have used some of the same reference materials is all but their flight model is one they coded up themselves.
-
Charts from BMS Mirage were used in DCS Mirage manual, with the permission from creators of those charts. From what RAZBAM said, they have used additional material, other charts, pilot input etc in development. Flight model is still in development, and entirely complete. But it isn’t really a copy paste of BMS model.
As to accuracy of Mirage’s flight performance in BMS, I’m sure there are people much more in the know about subject here than I am, but last I heard, acceleration and turn rates etc were quite accurate but the aicraft still used F-16 FLCS therefore flies differently from Mirage. While not up to the degree of F-16, there still has been a good deal of research and development for Mirage 2000 in BMS as far as I know. You can check in documents folder of BMS installation, some docs about Mirage FM under “docs/other documentation/flight models” folder. For DCS Mirage 2000, RAZBAM developed a new FLCS, from available accounts and pilots, to construct an FLCS code. It is not from released information or directly code itself for real life platform like F-16 FLCS in BMS, but with French being so stringy with classification of such stuff, RAZBAM took the best approach they can to model a plausible rendition of FLCS for a Mirage.
There are other stuff in Mirage module that needs completion, but flight model is not much to complain about so far, from my experience. Although, I am not entirely knowledgable about all the intricacies of Mirage 2000, but people who are die hard Mirage fans seem to be generally happy with flight model. Other stuff are being fixed fairly rapidly.
I also somewhat question “if an aircraft has so much classified stuff, should it even be done?” but, a lot of people wants the newest aircraft they can get, and there are very few 4th gen aircraft one can do without having to guesstimate some bits, so I guess more of such modules will come. I have bought Mirage out of curiosity and to give a chance to RAZBAM. I had reservations, but overall I can’t say I have been disappointed, even though there are quite a bit more stuff to complete in module currently.
Long in short, if you want a really complete product, you better wait on it. If your only reservation is that flight model is not well researched and just copied from another source, that is not really an accurate statement. Though, that is not to mean it flies exactly like a Mirage 2000C, since that is not something I can either confirm or deny as I didn’t fly a real thing :). If, you really like the aircraft itself, and want a depiction of it as as real is currently possible with available data, both in avionics and flight model wise, module is the best you can get currently.
Also, be mindful that it is a fairly early version of Mirage 2000, from about mid 80s, and not quite the multirole monster F-16C we have in BMS. No active radar missiles, or air to ground missiles on this variant of Mirage.
My personal stance was to hold off on getting the module until I was sure it is worth. But, in a lapse of reason, I got excited and got it anyway, especially due to they did release it with a AFM, as opposed to integrate it later on. Although there are quite a bit of things to complete on it’s systems, and flight model itself is also getting updates, I personally think it is enjoyable in it’s current state, but that’s just me anyway. And waiting on it a bit, as my original line of thought was, can still be considered the more reasonable choice.
-
On topic of preference, I am not the least bit interested in this jet. Other fly in circles, what can you do with it? It would be decimated by 3d and 4th Gen fighters.
Waiting on the Bug.
-
as far as i know dcs m2k,is indeed based on BMS topolo’s data
flcs cant be accurate since those bastard french dont give any infos… so this is guestimated based on videos and french pilots talking… nothing close to f16 bms flcs
-
On topic of preference, I am not the least bit interested in this jet. Other fly in circles, what can you do with it? It would be decimated by 3d and 4th Gen fighters.
Waiting on the Bug.
… I feel your disappointment in not having the F-18 before the M2000. But it is not a reason to say such undocumented affirmation. You seems not to know anything about M2000 variants. So the best is probably to say nothing rather than …
I am not used to be chauvinist, however, being on the terrain and being able to see what gives a Mirage compared to other aircraft (and nations) … there are some things that makes me laugh a little bit when I am hearing ppl like you …
Back in 95 during Red Flag … (jump to 10:55) https://www.ina.fr/video/CPC08003568 (M2KD’s objectives hit and Curt Sheldon (?) killed … not once, but three times) … was 20 years ago … still true today (even if those last years, not much M2000 were deployed in exercise since all airframe are deployed for real operations in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Mali … including C models used in pair with D models to drop GBUs)
Unless your knowledges are limited to the video games world, nobody can deny the efficiency of the various variants of M2000 in their assigned tasks (Air Sup for the -5, Conventional strikes including air support for the D, Nuk for the N) …
Pride is important and I understand your love for the F-18, but without objectivity concerning other airframes, you can’t be taken seriously. Mower, you are discrediting yourself with such affirmations.
Cheers!
-
Eh you could be correct, I am always willing to admit my errors, I am a married man afterall.
-
This post is deleted! -
Eh you could be correct, I am always willing to admit my errors, I am a married man afterall.
-
Eh you could be correct, I am always willing to admit my errors, I am a married man afterall.
best read for a post today!
-
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.
