Typhoon Weapons by MBDA

I can imagine it's not quite as simple as MBDA just not providing data; the basic capabilities of Brimstone (in both single mode and dual mode) are public knowledge and I'm almost positive if the guys at VEAO could include Brimstone based on those alone (range, search mode, velocity, tracking method) they would. However, I'd imagine the licensing issue(s) are the big stumbling block to including it. Failing that, we could always roll the default DCS AGM-114K Hellfire into the mix as a close substitute. As for Paveway IV, in DCS you will probably get equivalent performance from a GBU-12.

Whatever the result, I am really, really looking forward to this module!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could not imagine the shitstorm that will come over these forums when you try to introduce an AA missile only based on some developer specs which are not even FC3 level. :music_whistling:

 

BTW: How to combine a full simulated DCS module with clickable cockpit with weapons which are not even FC3 lvl... Would be a big obstacle for me when it comes to a buying decision. Don't think you can have both, at least the community will have a demand for server override options in weapon selection when choosing between "arcade" and "simulation" servers. Even virtual Hog drivers like me would demand a proof of feasibility and efficiency of the Brimstone on an early block of the Typhoon before throwing this toy into the pool.

 

Edit: A small look into Wikipedia showed that Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Meteor are only available for Version Block 15/+.

I don't see this.

One of the reasons why I disagree is that the current modelling of missiles in DCS isn't that detailed.

Furthermore - even for very old missiles (e.g. R-60) - getting exact information about their programming and seeker characteristics is difficult. Simply put, these weapons are so critical to a jet fighter's success that they tend to remain highly classified. So, weapons and ecm will always be lower fidelity than aircraft modelling. There is no way around it (other than guesswork).

As for the forum members - just don't include any of the weapons in the default loadouts and don't enable them in multiplayer. That should quiet down the critics.

Look, long and short of it is that VEAO are modelling a specific and fairly early Typhoon.

With a bit of luck/hard work by Ells/Pman/Lawyers, we'll get all the toys that version can do. We'll probably not get anything extra that was trialled/tested, and most definitely not anything that has appeared on later versions.

True - it doesn't keep me from being curious though!

P.S. I find it quite amusing that the Ef-2000 flight sim of 1995 models a more capable version than the one we're getting twenty years later in 2015!

Because the systems in EF2000 are actually quite far off of what Pete and I have played with sitting in a Typhoon in a hangar up at Conningsby.

We're going for as much realism as we're allowed to. The rest we will

Simulate to the best of our abilities :)

Because the systems in EF2000 are actually quite far off of what Pete and I have played with sitting in a Typhoon in a hangar up at Conningsby.

 

We're going for as much realism as we're allowed to. The rest we will

Simulate to the best of our abilities :)

And that's how a DCS module should be :thumbup:

Because the systems in EF2000 are actually quite far off of what Pete and I have played with sitting in a Typhoon in a hangar up at Conningsby.

 

We're going for as much realism as we're allowed to. The rest we will

Simulate to the best of our abilities :)

We will wait (im)patiently! :thumbup:

:D

Let me put it this way, the meeting I had with Thales and BAE Systems today was very interesting; however we will not confirm weapons capability until closer to release time.

 

There is a lot we would like to do but simply put, a lot that we can't do due to sensitivity.

What about just doing them, but reining them in a bit?

It'd be nice to have something closer to the designed capabilities (even if they aren't in service yet - they were planned in the '90s). Heck, it'd be nice to have the capability for mission building even if it is AI only!

I wouldn't put too much stock into the "time frame" of DCS, if we consider the fact that for a long time now it has had AI aircraft like the Su-30 and 34, which are barely in service now.

What about just doing them' date=' but reining them in a bit?[/quote']

Somehow I don't think their lawyers will fall for that one... Nor the DCS community which, I think (and should), prefers quality over quantity.

What about just doing them' date=' but reining them in a bit?[/quote']

 

Its not in our interests to do something to just get away with it.

 

We won't do something that will jeopardize our commercial relationships, Simple as that.

 

Pman

Its not in our interests to do something to just get away with it.

 

We won't do something that will jeopardize our commercial relationships, Simple as that.

 

Pman

Not just your commercial relationships, but also your customer relationships ;)

If something can't be done properly, then it shouldn't be done.

Absolutely well said.

Not just your commercial relationships, but also your customer relationships ;)

If something can't be done properly, then it shouldn't be done.

Indeed, I prefer no brimstone over dodgy brimstone. Lot's of people have been talking about the meteor, but honestly.. I won't miss it. If we have AMRAAM and ASRAAM, and possibly IRIS-T we have the coolest thing ever.

I do hope LGB's and TGP make it in, that would make this jet not just amazing, but perfect!

If something can't be done properly, then it shouldn't be done.

Then you may as well uninstall DCS if you think that everything we have in it is 100% accurate.

I don't see why doing a version of the mentioned weapons is a problem other than licensing, all you'd have to do is make sure they were not accurate in certain areas, but only approximations..... like it has always been done....

Indeed, I prefer no brimstone over dodgy brimstone. Lot's of people have been talking about the meteor, but honestly.. I won't miss it. If we have AMRAAM and ASRAAM, and possibly IRIS-T we have the coolest thing ever.

 

I do hope LGB's and TGP make it in, that would make this jet not just amazing, but perfect!

How can having nothing be better than having something that's as close as permitted but not 100%?

How can having nothing be better than having something that's as close as permitted but not 100%?

What it they're not permitted at all? :smilewink:

Or what if "as close as permitted" is just as little as 20%?

What it they're not permitted at all? :smilewink:

Then that would likely come under the licensing issue I mentioned.

It's unlikely that it would actually come to that given the mass of history of flight sims where things have been done, often without any permission, if it was the case making sims would be a non-starter to begin with considering all the manufacturers who'd have to be approached, imagine if you had to contact and get permission for every aircraft, helicopter, bomb, missile, SAM, AAA, tank, ship etc etc, if that was the case no one would bother to begin with.

Or what if "as close as permitted" is just as little as 20%?

20% is better than 0%, and let's be fair a lot of sims have done far worse...

If something can't be done properly, then it shouldn't be done.

A huge +1 in my opinion, at least if we are talking about DCS. If there were still other sims which don't advertise themselves hardcore realism but define themselves as survey sims, I'd say ok, I'd even play them a bit too.

Though, "properly" doesn't necessarily mean %100, I don't believe we'll ever get %100 in PC sims. As long as guesstimation, making up figures etc doesn't creep, I'm happy with some missing systems, even some intentionally unmodeled / nerfed systems.

I admire VEAO's stance on Typhoon.

 

Then that would likely come under the licensing issue I mentioned.

 

It's unlikely that it would actually come to that given the mass of history of flight sims where things have been done, often without any permission, if it was the case making sims would be a non-starter to begin with considering all the manufacturers who'd have to be approached, imagine if you had to contact and get permission for every aircraft, helicopter, bomb, missile, SAM, AAA, tank, ship etc etc, if that was the case no one would bother to begin with.

 

 

20% is better than 0%, and let's be fair a lot of sims have done far worse...

Regardless of % of accuracy we have to bear our military contracts in mind as well, I really can't / won't expand on that much more than this.

We have our variant we are making, Tranche 1 Block 5, It is our intention to make the best T1 B5 we can :)

We wont do something just because we can get away with it as you intimate with other games/sims may have done in the past.

A huge +1 in my opinion, at least if we are talking about DCS. If there were still other sims which don't advertise themselves hardcore realism but define themselves as survey sims, I'd say ok, I'd even play them a bit too.

 

Though, "properly" doesn't necessarily mean %100, I don't believe we'll ever get %100 in PC sims. As long as guesstimation, making up figures etc doesn't creep, I'm happy with some missing systems, even some intentionally unmodeled / nerfed systems.

 

I admire VEAO's stance on Typhoon.

Many thanks for the support :)

Pman

That said on a personal note, firing off rack after rack of brimstone would make me smile...

...alot

Pman

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

And there is nothing preventing VEAO from integrating certain weaponsystems later down the line if issues clear up...maybe.

So calm down, everyone.

As long as everything IN the module is well done, I won´t be crying over missing milk I didn´t pay for.

They´ll probably put out a list of things their module is capable off and if that list doesn´t coincide with your personal expectation (kind of like Mirage 2K and people "missing" the MICAs), you have the disgression to withhold your purchase.

Altho, I even purchased stuff I wasn´t interested in to show support and enable different modules later. We have to play the long game with this, guys.

And let´s not forget that VEAO is making a specific era of EF...if that can do what that era can do, I´m fine.

What's the radar on the block5?