DCS Mirage 2000 politically sensitive question
-
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. -
What is it with these never ending BMS vs. DCS arguments?
The flight sim community is small as it is. Can’t we just acknowledge the merits of both?
I most certainly do. -
The creator of the DCS M2000 module had asked me the authorization to use 2 things I’ve created:
- The performance charts
- The CL, CD and Thrust curves contained in the BMS 4.32 OFM file.
My answer has been positive, so, they have included my Performance Charts in their manual and they are trying to inject my CL, CD and Thrust in their DCS AFM….
As far as I know, what is currently public is a beta version (in fact they release a first beta and then an update).
The first beta did not have a FM based on my tables and global performance were very approximative.
It seems they have rebuilt the FM of the update in taking into account my CL, CD and Thrust tables, but it also seems that the way DCS model FM is a bit different from the way BMS describe an OFM, so the mapping is not obvious and the result does not seems to be wonderful at the moment…
BTW, they have tried to build a DCS AFM, so they need to define - all kind of parameters that are not in BMS OFM… and for that they are at te very beginning of the stoty (the yaw control is currently totally wrong)
- the AFM “code” to mimic the FLCS (and for that, I assume they have absolutely no knowledge of the M2000 FLCS), do I do not even understand what they want to do.
In summary:
- Yes DCS M2000 FM is based on BMS 4.32 M2000 OFM
- The current beta version of the DCS module has a FAR less accurate FM than current BMS M2000 AFM
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
-
Nice insight!
-
… but guys … remember … you are talking about a beta product. :roll:
(Do you understand now why BMS do never communicate on WIP features, do not release any video of on going project and to not makes their beta public! … :mrgreen: )
-
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 career
-
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? I was going to buy that module and so far I had heard nothing but good about it. I think the evan had a serbian pilot working with them, can it be that bad?
And about the M2000 in BMS, does it has it´s own FLCS or using the F16 one?
Cheers
Tulkas
-
Really? I was going to buy that module and so far I had heard nothing but good about it. I think the evan had a serbian pilot working with them, can it be that bad?
And about the M2000 in BMS, does it has it´s own FLCS or using the F16 one?
Cheers
Tulkas
remember that Microprose worked with F16 pilot to create falcon 4.0 …
sounds familiar about the quality of the FM ?
-
This post is deleted! -
http://www.stripes.com/news/aviano-airmen-s-visit-to-serbia-part-of-friendship-exchange-1.50949
Novac and his MiGuelito
-
And about the M2000 in BMS, does it has it´s own FLCS or using the F16 one?
Still using F-16 FLCS logic.