Brother, if they were not the same, they would not call it a Mirage… its the same platform but modernized through the years.
Dassault has taken the platform as far as they could into the 21st century. It been wonderful and an honorable service. But it’s time to say goodbye.
The Gripen and Rafale are the new kids on the block.
mirage is a “family” name.
It’s like saying the F15 and F16 are the same because they share the letter “F”
Best comparison i can give you for mirage III / 2000 difference is F5 and F20 tigershark. Very similar in looks but not the same planes at all…
Pro tip, mirage 3 and mirage F1 share the same “Mirage” name. Now look at those pictures and tell me, are both the same “platform” ?
As for Gripen, comparing it to a Rafale would be the same as comparing the Rafale to a F22, if you see what i mean…
The Mirage F1 was created because Dassault abandoned the Delta configuration during a moment in history. Once the advent of the FBW came in they returned to the delta, slapped it in the original Mirage platform with other modernizations and thus the 2000 was born.
Please brother. Stop
They are rightfully called Mirages. Just because Dassault was forced to switch wing configuration for one variant to stay relevant in combat aviation during a brief period while they wait for the technology is hardly relevant.
History is very crucial in understanding combat aviation design and to War Thunder. Not saying you have no knowledge. I am referring to @MiG_23M
Someone is thinking the Mirage 2000 is an upgrade of the Mirage III? lol
Don’t they know that they aren’t the same wing at all? Like… they’re both triangles… sure… but one of them is not equal to the other… like seriously? I’m at a loss for words. The Mirage III doesn’t even have leading edge flaps or anywhere near the visible profile of the Mirage 2000s… such an odd assumption.
That would be like saying the Gripen is a development of the Viggen because they both share canards and a delta wing… Honestly just astounding.
The difference is that the Gripen and Mirage 2000 are both pre-computer era designs that were later augmented and modified by technological advances of the digital age. They both incorporated relaxed static stability, fly-by-wire, advanced composite materials, modern radars and computer technology, full authority digital engine controls (FADEC)…
Now… let’s not pretend the Mirage 2000 didn’t dominate the Gripen for the majority of its’ life having helmet mounted displays, better dogfight missiles, fox-3s… entirely domestically designed and produced with little help from outside sources.
ANYHOW… I think we are getting a bit off topic. The entire point in comparing the two was to show the similarities and contrasts of the design and what makes the Gripen better than the Mirage 2000 (in the few areas it actually is better, anyway)…
The Viggen is not the same wing pattern. The Viggen is a different kind of canard delta.
Pretending another man is blocked because you cannot hang with his points is really cringe.
Ziggy yes
Delta + Canard, looks the same to me… See ? that’s how little sense your M2K / M3 comparison sounds like
Su27 and Mig29 have the same wing pattern and they are far from being the same plane, same thing for viggen and gripen
Mirage 2000 wouldn’t even fly without FBW, while mirage III can, the engine isn’t the same diameter either, the M53 wouldn’t even fit in a Mirage III airframe X)
Un “Upgrade” is when you fit different equipment in a similar airframe, not when you redesign the whole thing. F15C is an upgrade of F15A, Rafale F4 in an upgrade of Rafale F2, Su30 is an upgrade of Su27, M2K is just a different plane
The Viggen has flaps on its canards, brother. It’s been such a long time I will get the exact name and the aerodynamic differences.
I really do not want to get into the Fulcrum and Flanker at the moment.
Yes and that is is because they added all the aerodynamic advancements of the 1980s in the Mirage 2000 due to the FBW technology.
The Mirage 2000 is not a new platform outside of the original Mirage 3, But a modernized advancement.
With advent of FBW technology Dassault was able to return to the beloved Mirage 3 platform and utilize all the benefits of the original design they were not able to tap into prior.
I know this is making perfect sense to you. Please, be reasonable.
Unless we don’t have the same definition of “upgrade”, no it does not
Unless you mean “successor” like the gripen is to the viggen or the f18 is to the f14…
Because I love you, we can call it a successor, ok? Not an upgrade.
Regardless, the M2k is of a design and evolutionary line under the Gripen and Rafale
The Swedes skipped their “M2k” and went straight to their “Rafale.”
They must be insistent…
I’ve only got a handful of people ignored I figured it would be one of them.
In any case I think that any quips from the user who was claiming the Mirage 2000 to be a development of the Mirage III series can be fully disregarded going forward on the basis of their level of knowledge on the subject. I’d like to remind y’all that I have some open reports on the Gripen (of which the only “nerf” is the thrust one)… and even then it shouldn’t be looked at like a hard nerf.
Incorrect thrust (thrust should be reduced, along with drag coefficients)…
Flaps schedule / deflection angles (mostly cosmetic, should be fixed with the instability report that follows)…
Incorrectly modeled stability report (Will improve very low speed handling and performance)… potentially fix AoA issues. At least, we cannot fix them until this is modeled.
I had some additional redundant reports closed because they are in-line with the issues outlined by the lack of instability report. Beyond this, I lacked information in the first thrust report which was found and verified in the second report.
Not blocked. You are reading everything I say.
You are probably the most blocked person in all of WT forum history across two websites. I would not mention numbers if I were you.
However much biased you think he is, you honestly need to work on your anger management…
It’s a video game and you get more and more personally obsessed. If you don’t like it, you do have the exact same rights as he does. Report it, discuss it.
And honestly take a minute to check the sources and think realistically for a moment.
The RM12, no matter what else they changed, isn’t going to be THAT much stronger than a much later development to increase thrust…
It could be at the same or close to the performance, maybe even beat it SLIGHTLY, but there is no way that the RM12 is performing like ingame in real life.
Take a step back, breath and come back with more reasonable answers and less personal attacks. Focus on the subject, not him.
I know it can be frustrating when you think his side is the only side listened to, but at least this time it does indeed make sense, if we like it or not.
And he isn’t at fault for creating the FM. He isn’t at fault when it’s corrected either. GJ could have stumbled upon those sources themselves.
It will take a bit of time to get the Gripen modelled decently correct. Until then we have to do it bit by bit.
And that’s exactly what I meant, you better take a step back and stop flailing at anyone you disagree with.
“spam reporting gives you a sense of purpose and opportunity to about yourself”
I could quote a ton of your posts, and a lot of them had personal attacks and unnecessary aggression in them.
So maybe ask yourself if that’s the correct response to a discussion. You went way past the point of a “pleasant” discussion.
I am well aware you don’t want to hear that since you answer with even more agression but that will just end up biting you in the a** later =)
EDIT: And no… You can’t say whatever you want to him… This is a public forum with rules, so you will have to follow them even if you don’t want to ;)
Take care and cool off a bit, I will take time off during the holidays, I wish happy holidays to each and everyone of you. Bye.
Quote them homeboy. Do not let me stop you. Matter of fact, make a collage print it out and rub it in your chest.
I’ll let him know now he’s got an additional fanboy. Are we done here?
Yeah, Merry Christmas to you too.
Yes, it’s you agains the world. Everyone is wrong but you. Now live happily in that knowledge and enjoy the holiday season.
No not at all, I do not know anything. I make that very clear. I am just some nerd who likes airplanes and aviation history.
This particular platform is not the average copy paste platform and the Gripen is the only competing fighters at 12.0+ for two long suffering nations. Sweden will not get a new platform for the foreseeable future.
Spamming reports just because we are bored is not ideal. This should be a community discussed topic and action should be taken on general consensus of the users who do not have the luxury of branching out to other nations and are stuck with the British and Swedish tech tree.
FM changes are not easily reverted. I do not care how many “trust me bros” you have saved up. It does not matter. They are not developers and none of you know the ramifications of nerfing the model to a full extent, nor when they will be fixed after your “fixes”.
You have a lot of troubling opinions.
Fixing bug should NOT be a community discussed topic in terms of “IF” the bug is fixed. Bugs NEED to be fixed regardless of the impact on the vehicles.
A Community should never have any say in that.
“No, we don’t want our plane to perform like the real thing, we like it better when it’s wrong because we can’t play other things”
Is that really what you are trying to say?
Of course WE don’t know what it does to the FM, you know why? Because shit doesn’t make sense for a lot of the FM and DM ingame. Most of the things are a makeshift solution to try and fix engine limitations.
NERA armor on tanks used to be a 4-6x multiplier on the last RHA plate with all the composite before that giving as little as 1mm of protection… The drag of most aircraft, and Cl values are wrong, the lift of a lot of planes is wrong. They are given certain values to fit the known performance metrics within margin of error.
This can lead to a situaton where a plane has twice the thrust and twice the drag, but ends up quite accurate for most of it’s speed range. Yet it will not perform anywhere close to real life in other areas like turn and energy retention.
The developers CAN’T reduce the Thrust of the Gripen WIHTOUT changing it’s drag value. The Gripen won’t even be able to reach speeds remotely close to the Mach1.1 the acceleration test is based off.
They are simply getting the data now for the thrust, if they have that they can’t just change those numbers and hope everything stays the same… They will have 1 less unknown, which means they can adapt the other values closer to reality. And then if we find any more values they can use, they edge closer and closer to the real thing.
These are not bugs we are talking about sweety.
I do not care about armor or the displacement of the Yamamoto.
None of you have established that the aircraft is not performing according to the real thing and the War Thunder video game enhancement.
EVERY AIRCRAFT overperforms in the game of WT.
Yes we have. Current Aicraft acceleration is below what it should be. And that’s with the engine thrust being literally off the charts…
It currently takes 35 seconds instead of 30 seconds which is roughly 16,6% difference in acceleration. In other words the engine produces Thrust that currently is only enough for around 84% it’s real world acceleration. Even with that impossible thrust curve. Do you understand why it’s actually beneficial to us to have that fixed?
If they have 1 value wrong by THAT much, the whole FM will end up behaving weird in certain aspects. You end up with a plane that feels like hitting a wall at a certain speed because the drag value is set too high.
The RM12 ingame is currently producing 35% more thrust than the engine in the F-18 that had most of the changes also applied to it. Again, you can still argue that the RM12 would be slightly better, but not 35% better…
When they talked about the uprated RM12 they said they wanted a 3-15% increase in power for the next update… I don’t think 35% more thrust is realistic, even when you only keep 50% of the basic materials. It would have to be a complete redesign. Otherwise Volvo would have made an engine 35% more powerful, slightly more fuel efficient and keep it at the same weight… They aren’t wizards in sweden… :D
hmmm… I will contemplate more on this. I really do not want to start researching a freaking engine right now.
When there are actual models that are suffering and can be brought up first. Before we start picking apart the Gripen.
(F-15 and Su27 radar)
Do you not see the logic in this? IMPROVE the models we all as a community know and agree are underperforming first. Then assess the situation regarding those that may be overperforming.
Not just obsess over the smallest deviations of an engine in hopes of nerfing the one good aircraft. OBVIOUSLY there is a biased attempt to nerf the Gripen. The developers literally told @MiG_23M to chill with the canard reports, god damn.
No, he is tweaking over the engines. These are not bugs. These are attempted nerfs to the model straight up.