Before anyone else pings me all mad.
I need you guys to take step back. Put your pride aside and look up the fundamental differences between the word redesign and new design.
The mirage 2000 is not a new design. It’s a redesign.
Cheers.
Source?
Wait,
Do you think the word Redesign is a bad thing? As in a negative?
Do you understand that many new designs fail? Like all the time?
Yeah I suppose I can hold your hand walk you through it. But make a new topic.
Honestly i don’t give it a damn, although you guys went out in this convo for like 2 days, so i was wondering if your affirmation had a source or not, thats about it. I didn’t responded at all on the thread, and im just wondering that.
@Ziggy1989
As I am sure you are already aware of, the nomenclature/heriatage/design philosiphy of aircraft produced by dassault is seen here as suscinctly different to the design, development, integration and role from aircraft to aircraft.
Most users here are particularly interested in the design intricacies and finer details of development and purpose, most of your topics and posts have been about the philosophical nature of why the aircraft are named Mirage.
What aircraft are named is frankly, ulrelated in regard to how the aircraft is designed and used, and this goes the same for many military vehicles that re-use names serval times over… the Mirage 2000 could have been named the Spicy French Dorito and it wouldn’t have made any difference to the design philosophy and development of the aircraft.
As for your oppinions/arguments, most people don’t disagree with what you are saying but rather, how you are saying it.
For example, when you say an aircraft is “based on” X, most people here imagine an example like the F15E strike Eagle, and would say it is based on the F15A/C Eagle. The aircraft being essentially the same, but the role, configuration and implementation are sufficiently different to result in a different designation of aircraft where the airframe and internals are significantly modified to result in a “new” aircraft.
An aircraft that is “based on” another aircraft would share signficiant design elements that are relatively unchanged.
Therfore, The Mirage 50 is based on the Mirage 5, which in turn is based on the Mirage III. They are again essentially roughly the same airframe and have lots of common parts and shared features, but are viewed as different aircraft with different roles and uses due to signficant modifications and design changes.
The Mirage IIIE is seen as a variant of the Mirage IIIC and so on because the changes are primarily upgrades and the overall design and role is the same.
The Mirage IV, Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000 bear no common resemblance in design, features or capabilities to each other or the older Mirage III airframe, and as such are viewed as entirely separate designs of aircraft with little to no shared elements at all.
You are technically correct that they share the same design philosophy, which is what you have been arguing for. But to say their design is related is akin to saying you are related to a distant cousin in the same way you are related to a sibling. Yes there is some relation/resemblance, but how closely related you are is of signficant importance to some people.
That is a very fast way to piss off a lot of people who are going to be very pedantic about specific designs and how much of the specific design of aircraft is shared from one to another. (Lots of forum warriors here who are very strongly oppinionated)
1 Like
Yeah make a topic, I will gladly hold your hand and take you on a history lesson of dassault
Oh, but you don’t give a damn right? So why open your mouth?
No, i don’t think i will. In fact, i think you’re pretty pathetic to bring out 100-200 reply convo here without even having some type of source or proof of your affirmations.
1 Like
What do you have to offer in the discussion? Complain why magic II is not as good or why you can’t perform in WT?
Did i said that? Dunno man, those affirmations really show how much pathetic you are in fact.
Exactly all you have to offer is negativity. You are angry for no reason.
The topic is literally dead every time I leave. Anyone only comes when someone ask me questions. But you get all bothered by it, why?
Cheer up buttercup.
I’ll reply in messages bro.
Great points.
Am i?
This doesn’t mean you can come here, say one thing, which then do not show any proof or source or your affirmations, while you’re being told by different people that you are wrong.
Also, i didn’t bringed any negativity nor i was angry, i just asked for a source, you’re the one that started being defensive or making other questions, then asking me for making a new topic for having a reply, which sounds quite funny since we’re talking about the Mirage 2000 after all, which is relevant to the thread.
Absolutely. You are so triggered. Lol.
For absolutely no reason.
Because I am not your daddy. I do not have to prove or provide anything to you. I am not your history teacher either.
I am only providing perspective and urge others to go research and enjoy aviation history instead of whine on the forums about how the snail did you dirty.
Everything I have talked about is widely available on the internet. Get off your butt, get out there and research.
This forum is a discussion, not a trial. If you are interested in Dassault aviation history/design or there is something you disagree with. Please make a topic or message me. We can share sources there. Since this is now not the place anymore.
Oh, but you don’t give a damn? So why should I go out to my way for you?
Cheers! Loll
Not, i’am not, if you think i’am you’re deep wrong.
Which in fact means, you don’t want to provide proof for your words, ok.
By any chance can you show me the message in this thread where i malded about Gaijin? I did 5 replies, 6 if you count this one, and i don’t recall mentioning once Magic 2’s or the game for that matter, so basically you’re accusing without reasons.
That’s not exactly correct. It’s a new design that shares features with the old one.
Re-design implies some limited parts commonality. Like F-86 to F-86D.
Mirage 3 to Mirage 2000 (and 4000) have functionally zero parts commonality, barring the ability to carry old dumb bombs and old Magic 1. They just share a general shape and basic feature list with their ancestor.
I feel this debate is really on “where do you draw the line between new design and derivative design”.
Is a design that shares goals and planform as an older one a derivative or is it new? Or does there need to be more in common?
If a design is built to a philosophy the same as an older one, is it derivative?
I personally draw the line with parts commonality between designs. If there is almost none (<95%) then the design is new but shares features/philosophy.
6 Likes
Did you just started up AGAIN,…
For real bro, was it that hard not to continue?
Was it that hard to create that damn new thread i told you to do by yourself?
You gave me words that you’ll stop,… were those meaningless?
1 Like
I have failed you. My apologies. No more.
Good points. I read it all.
Guys what in the God’s name are you doing discussing the same pointless things for 3 days straight? Like fr what the hell…
I keep checking the thread thinking there’s something new interesting about Mirage like accepted/fixed bug reports or even some pics of the jet idk but to my surprise it’s the same nonsense talk every time.
2 Likes
It’s pointless to you, we respect that. But clearly people love discussing and debating history and design origin of the mirage 2000.
You care only about a missile that has already been discussed and officially ruled on……also pictures of the jet? Weird ok. We got plenty of pictures…. I suspect you are only coming in to stir up strife and more division.
We can go back to talking about the magic II though.
Magic II is too short in range imo.
What do you think? Yay or nay?