Jump to content

Typhoon Capability & Systems


Recommended Posts

I don't mind certain classified things being simulated as long as they are believable and approximate some sort of verbal description of capability. It would be nice to have a statement of what has to be approximated and to what length so that we could just pidgeon hole the classified parts and not have to revisit those questions/debates.

 

+1. I'm totally not into fantasy planes. I don't mind some things being "simulated" like the ECM, because its going to act the same in the end anyway, just like it would on the real plane. It will be very closely guessed at, I'm sure. What I don't want is if switches are missing, in the wrong place, or readouts are fictitious and not that way in the real plane. Which is why I stay away from sims of newer planes. Waiting for 70's, 80's jets that are far more declassified. I mean come-on, plenty of Chinese "government workers" could probably explain in extreme detail how the ECM's on those work by now. :P When your enemies already know every detail, its pointless to keep the info from your own citizens / future soldiers.


Edited by Chernaren Refugee
Link to comment
I mean come-on, plenty of Chinese "government workers" could probably explain in extreme detail how the ECM's on those work by now. :P When your enemies already know every detail, its pointless to keep the info from your own citizens / future soldiers.

There is still the difference in guessing at something and having it confirmed that your guess is correct (or wrong)

Sons of Dogs, Come Eat Flesh

Clan Cameron

Link to comment
+1. I'm totally not into fantasy planes. I don't mind some things being "simulated" like the ECM, because its going to act the same in the end anyway, just like it would on the real plane. It will be very closely guessed at, I'm sure. What I don't want is if switches are missing, in the wrong place, or readouts are fictitious and not that way in the real plane. Which is why I stay away from sims of newer planes. Waiting for 70's, 80's jets that are far more declassified. I mean come-on, plenty of Chinese "government workers" could probably explain in extreme detail how the ECM's on those work by now. :P When your enemies already know every detail, its pointless to keep the info from your own citizens / future soldiers.

Hi

 

What we include with the Typhoon will be due to an agreement With the military. If they don't want it included then it won't be included.

 

Yes, if that means that there are certain switches which are non functional or the sequence to start the jet (for example) is slightly different then so be it.

 

We won't be confirming what is redacted and what isn't, so to be honest unless your in a position to go fly a real one you just won't know the difference.

 

When dealing with classified information is a case of obeying the law, not just including something because it was leaked on a website in China.

 

Pman

Link to comment
Hi

 

What we include with the Typhoon will be due to an agreement With the military. If they don't want it included then it won't be included.

 

Yes, if that means that there are certain switches which are non functional or the sequence to start the jet (for example) is slightly different then so be it.

 

We won't be confirming what is redacted and what isn't, so to be honest unless your in a position to go fly a real one you just won't know the difference.

 

When dealing with classified information is a case of obeying the law, not just including something because it was leaked on a website in China.

 

Pman

 

+1 Apart from the fact that you don't necessarily need to fly the real thing to know how things work. In any case there are so many different PSCs out there that you will even struggle at some point about the differences, the lims on top of the "how it should work". I suppose you are still in an earlier stage of the related negotiations? In any case keep up the good work!

Link to comment

And once again don't forget that the A10C provided by ED is not 100% accurate and I would bet there aren't 1 in a 100 that could tell the difference or what has been omitted...

 

A-10C is still an excellent simulation of the aircraft and we aren't getting a lesser experience at all..

 

I have no doubt that the finished product from VEAO will be every bit as high quality as A-10 is and I am just waiting to add all of their modules to my hangar...

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment

I've seen hints from blacked out photos/videos of parts that are classified on the A-10C. A few readouts. Probably some experimental bolt on's I won't miss. Everything else seems to be legit. Its like the IFF on the BlackShark. ECM, IFF, they're probably never going to declassify those, so I expect that. In the Shark, they just disabled it, while still modeling the dials, etc. correctly. Good enough. What I don't like is when they start trying to hide cockpit switches and buttons, "simulating" stuff and not telling anyone its fake, etc. If its classified, I would rather it just be "non-functional" with the switch / button modeled realistically (after all, we can already see photo's of the real cockpits).

 

So far, from what I've read, it sounds like half the Typhoon is "classified" (including the startup?:mad: ) , so I feel like I'm just learning nothing but fake buttons and switches. No thanks. Waste of time and effort IMO. Might as well just fly FC3.

 

Because of this, I hope more "de-classified", older 70's / 80's aircraft come out that aren't classified up the ying-yang.


Edited by Chernaren Refugee
  • Like 1
Link to comment

The warthog's pretty classified, you just don't know it. 'A few readouts' is pretty funny given how much data-link functionality alone is missing, never mind actual ECM, JDAM operation and other fun things :)

 

Older aircraft are also either fairly classified as well, or there are no more or difficult to find SMEs for flight modeling and technical operation. Sorry to say, but you're in a pinch one way or another.

 

What Pman is telling you is that if the air force says 'you can't model this part', then they won't. I doubt they'll say this about most of the start-up sequence, but there could be a few pieces of electronics or indication from such things that they might not want you to know about. Switches, though? Throw the switches and watch her hum to life.

 

Well, at least your honest about it. I'll be sticking to less classified aircraft, like the old Warthog. I'm sure its going to be the same with the F-18F/G. And really? Even some of the start up sequence is classified?

Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Well, at least your honest about it. I'll be sticking to less classified aircraft, like the old Warthog. I'm sure its going to be the same with the F-18F/G. And really? Even some of the start up sequence is classified?

 

I've seen hints from blacked out photos/videos of parts that are classified on the A-10C. A few readouts. Probably some experimental bolt on's I won't miss. Everything else seems to be legit. Its like the IFF on the BlackShark. ECM, IFF, they're probably never going to declassify those, so I expect that. In the Shark, they just disabled it, while still modeling the dials, etc. correctly. Good enough. What I don't like is when they start trying to hide cockpit switches and buttons, "simulating" stuff and not telling anyone its fake, etc. If its classified, I would rather it just be "non-functional" with the switch / button modeled realistically (after all, we can already see photo's of the real cockpits).

 

So far, from what I've read, it sounds like half the Typhoon is "classified" (including the startup?:mad: ) , so I feel like I'm just learning nothing but fake buttons and switches. No thanks. Waste of time and effort IMO. Might as well just fly FC3.

 

Because of this, I hope more "de-classified", older 70's / 80's aircraft come out that aren't classified up the ying-yang.

 

Unfortunately for you what you're finding on google isn't half of what isn't modeled in the A-10C. It is one of the best modeled sims around but a lot of things are missing or completely redone and you wouldn't know it unless you work them (maintenance) or fly them.

 

And before you ask, no I can't tell you what exactly.

Link to comment
I've seen hints from blacked out photos/videos of parts that are classified on the A-10C. A few readouts. Probably some experimental bolt on's I won't miss. Everything else seems to be legit. Its like the IFF on the BlackShark. ECM, IFF, they're probably never going to declassify those, so I expect that. In the Shark, they just disabled it, while still modeling the dials, etc. correctly. Good enough. What I don't like is when they start trying to hide cockpit switches and buttons, "simulating" stuff and not telling anyone its fake, etc. If its classified, I would rather it just be "non-functional" with the switch / button modeled realistically (after all, we can already see photo's of the real cockpits).

 

So far, from what I've read, it sounds like half the Typhoon is "classified" (including the startup?:mad: ) , so I feel like I'm just learning nothing but fake buttons and switches. No thanks. Waste of time and effort IMO. Might as well just fly FC3.

 

Because of this, I hope more "de-classified", older 70's / 80's aircraft come out that aren't classified up the ying-yang.

 

I specifically havent given any indication of how much is classified in the case of the Typhoon as we dont have a signed agreement from the Military yet.

 

Even when we have that agreement we wont be able to go into details. I think you would find it hard to be frustrated at something thats missing when you dont know its missing :)

 

The warthog's pretty classified, you just don't know it. 'A few readouts' is pretty funny given how much data-link functionality alone is missing, never mind actual ECM, JDAM operation and other fun things :)

 

Older aircraft are also either fairly classified as well, or there are no more or difficult to find SMEs for flight modeling and technical operation. Sorry to say, but you're in a pinch one way or another.

 

What Pman is telling you is that if the air force says 'you can't model this part', then they won't. I doubt they'll say this about most of the start-up sequence, but there could be a few pieces of electronics or indication from such things that they might not want you to know about. Switches, though? Throw the switches and watch her hum to life.

 

Pretty much spot on :thumbup:

 

Pman

  • Like 1
Link to comment

As I've said, tiny things like exactly how the IFF / the ECM work, I'm not so concerned about. I expect you to have to "simulate" those, as 1) Our CPU's would probably catch on fire trying to do it for real, and 2) Of course, they're never going to tell us exactly how they work. What I really want to see modeled, is exactly what a real pilot would see flying the real plane. The real startup sequence, the real radar readouts, the complete cockpit switches and levers/dials, the correct hud graphics, the correct readouts on the monitors and analog dials, etc.

Missing data-link functionality is interesting. In that respect, I would hope you would guess as correctly as possible what it should be like, or just leave it out (non-functional) if you can't. I really hate spending hours and hours learning something, and then find out later it was completely fake. I would rather have just had it marked "non-functional" and did without it.

 

EDIT: Oh, and here we go with the cowardly fanboy's secretly neg repping anyone they don't like. The usual bullies. Exactly why I disregard "rep" in this forum. Infantile crap.


Edited by Chernaren Refugee
Link to comment
What I really want to see modeled, is exactly what a real pilot would see flying the real plane.

 

The real startup sequence,

 

the real radar readouts,

 

the complete cockpit switches and levers/dials,

 

the correct hud graphics,

 

the correct readouts on the monitors

 

and analog dials, etc.

 

This is where you have to draw the line between being trained to fly the real thing for the military and using a home simulator.

 

You have to trust that we will model/simulate everything we are legally allowed to.

 

If you want more than that you will have to join one of the Air Forces that use the Typhoon and play with a real one. :D

 

Pman

Link to comment
As I've said, tiny things like exactly how the IFF / the ECM work,

 

Tiny? Is your ECM shutting down the opponents ability to take the first shot, or, better yet, any shot, tiny? Is the ability of the IFF to give you exact data about your buddy's whereabouts at any given time tiny?

 

I expect you to have to "simulate" those, as 1) Our CPU's would probably catch on fire trying to do it for real,

 

You simulate everything. Like radars, bombs, targeting pods, engines.

 

2) Of course, they're never going to tell us exactly how they work.

 

Doesn't matter. There's plenty of info out there about how jammers work. What you won't find is what it is they work on, ie. I have radar set X with software version Y and he has radar jammer pod Z with software A, what do I see on my scope?

Can I lock onto him at all? Will my missile guide? It's all pretty easy to simulate, the problem is proving that your hunch that one guy's ECM is better than the other's ECCM (or vice versa) is realistic.

 

What I really want to see modeled, is exactly what a real pilot would see flying the real plane. The real startup sequence, the real radar readouts, the complete cockpit switches and levers/dials, the correct hud graphics, the correct readouts on the monitors and analog dials, etc.

 

That's great, how will you know the difference?

 

Missing data-link functionality is interesting. In that respect, I would hope you would guess as correctly as possible what it should be like, or just leave it out (non-functional) if you can't. I really hate spending hours and hours learning something, and then find out later it was completely fake. I would rather have just had it marked "non-functional" and did without it.

 

I'd rather have a cut-down data-link than no data-link. You're not going to know what it really gives you anyway.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment

To clarify. We have a pretty good idea of what is classified and what is not given the access we have to the aircraft. What Pete is saying is we can't tell you, for obvious reasons.

 

We could go around this for eternity so let's leave it there.

 

We will be doing a public alpha small release like we did with the Hawk, if you don't like it at that point you don't have to buy it and if you do, well great.

 

There is method to our madness no matter how mad it seems to you guys ;)

Link to comment
We will be doing a public alpha small release like we did with the Hawk, if you don't like it at that point you don't have to buy it and if you do, well great.

 

There is method to our madness no matter how mad it seems to you guys ;)

 

This is very good news, as much as I wanted to be involved, I didn't have the time for the Hawk beta due to a move, I will certainly be applying to help out with the Typhoon! As for restricted systems, well that is fair enough, anybody that expects 100% accuracy and openness on an aircraft such as the Eurofighter has unrealistic expectations honestly. Even with a few missing systems that we will have no idea about, this bird will no doubt still take an age to learn...

[sIGPIC]sigpic67951_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment

EDIT: Oh, and here we go with the cowardly fanboy's secretly neg repping anyone they don't like. The usual bullies. Exactly why I disregard "rep" in this forum. Infantile crap.

 

This is what you brought upon yourself, do not blame others on what is caused by your behavior. So far you have been only accusing people or claiming that you know better than professionals, then getting mad of your own misunderstanding.

 

I do not know how anyone could be more clear about it: no one will tell you things that you are not allowed to know without clearance and especially not on public forum such as this. Get over it. It has been your own misunderstandings you have been raving about.

 

People here have great patience but enough is enough. VEAO is doing great work on many fronts here and they are going to be by the letter of the law about it.

"I would have written a shorter post, but I did not have the time."

Link to comment
EDIT: Oh, and here we go with the cowardly fanboy's secretly neg repping anyone they don't like. The usual bullies. Exactly why I disregard "rep" in this forum. Infantile crap.

 

Negative rep isn't being a bully, I could have called you out publically for your uneducated idiotic posts but choose to do it quietly hoping you would correct your mistakes and listen to those in The know. Guess I was wrong, you're one of those who won't learn and believe what you can find with google is the gospel.

Link to comment
And when you keep saying "you'll never know", it doesn't really give me a whole lot of confidence in what your putting out.

 

Then please take your negativity and go away...

You whine about things you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and then ignore perfectly plausible statements made by those that do, all the while complaining... (In multiple threads I might add.)

 

Go away

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment

In the US there is a code that states that if you publish information, even if you had zero idea it was classified (let's say you were just really smart and came up with the idea on your own) you can still be found legally liable for posting such information the same way as if you knew it was classified and chose to leak it.

 

Guessing is as bad as knowing, especially if you have a pretty good idea what things might be, regardless of why your guess might just happen to be accurate.

 

During WW2, we had a saying: "Lose lips sink ships". Works pretty well as a metaphor, too.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...