Jump to content

Fitting Eurofighter into 2003-2007 timeframe of modern DCS


bies

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that's the problem with "modern" air cobmat. Post 1991 Desert Storm there was no air combat. Even semi symetric.

 

Eagles and Falcons shoot a few completely helpless MiGs (who didn't even know they were being attacked, even though Eagles are not stealth) in Balkans 1999 with AMRAAMS and that's it.

Noone realy know how the air combat between symmetric enemies would look like post Cold War, how modern ECMs, RWRs, datalinks other pasive sensorsl would affect symmetric modern air combat.

Maybe there wouldn't be much direct missile shooting, there would be missile carriers shooting and running and other stealts fighters guiding this ramjet missiles, fired by another group, from standoff distance.

Or maybe computers already surpassed human and manned fighters would only coordinate the whole drone combat from hundred miles. US tested AI piloting fighters instead of human and win easily against manned plane even having worse airframe.

 

Well, the recent Indo-Pak battle a few years back is an interesting hint of what it might look like, or might have in the 07 ish time frame since most of the airframes/tech used date to that.

 

But DCS is fairly limited in being able to model a lot of that.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You just made a fool out of yourself by thinking real world tactics apply to DCS.

 

IDK, I guess I'm a fool for buying the "most realistic" simulator on the market marketing drivel. :music_whistling:

 

But, basic BVR tactics like cranks, pumps, etc do work as well. As do BFM tactics if you actually get to the merge as you said.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I see this all the time online. Take down one sides awacs for example and most of the F18 guys log off within minutes of realizing it, because playing without that advantage is "no fun". Or the F14, which has to be balanced somehow, because if its not pretty soon your PVP server is a PVE server because almost no one wants to fly as manned drone target etc. etc. And there are many strategies for servers to achieve this.

 

Now I'm not saying don't model the typhoon realistically, but at the end of the day I can see it causing issues online that will have to be dealt with.

 

And yeah, the chest thumping is dumb...

 

Agree with this, majority of playerbase is all to keen on blaming "this and that OP" instead of sucking it up and actually learning to play.

 

The phoenixes, especially the mk60 are a rather special case in my opion, and albeit they can be worked around however because of how idiotically it is modeled at the moment with the passive magic guidance it essentially removes most of the skill behind employing that weapon. Make no mistake, you can absolutely defeat it, but it's still stupid and it's very far from any kind of realism.

 

And let's be honest it's not fun to fight a platform that is borderline void of any skill that puts you on defense for multiple minutes without being able to close the distance and fight back in most scenarios. If this was a realistic misson like the old OPFORs etc. that happens once a while I'd concur it'd be an interesting fight, but the majority of people are here to have fun and/or learn day in day out and you're not learning a lot fighting a guy that presses a button at 40 miles then turns cold and goes to eat a pizza while you're still defending his missile because of scifi guidance.

 

 

IDK, I guess I'm a fool for buying the "most realistic" simulator on the market marketing drivel. music_whistling.gif

 

But, basic BVR tactics like cranks, pumps, etc do work as well. As do BFM tactics if you actually get to the merge as you said.

 

Actually you are :) missile modeling is very far from it, especially terminal guidance. CCM and ECCM modeling is extremely poor / nonexistant. Some aircraft systems are nicely modeled, but that's about it. Other environmental and support systems and general simulator core is in generally an even worse state. Take the AI AWACS for instance, it's been the same since probably FC1. You're merged and calls popups at 200 miles.

 

As I described, the tactics found in DCS are developed based on similar phenomenon as in real life, this is why you can see basic building blocks like cranks, notches, however the overall picture of how people use it in combination is an evolution of it's own.

 

Overall I treat as if this was an alternate reality that allows me to be a fighter pilot who develops his own tactics based on this alternate reality. To me it's not super interesting to try to replicate exact real life tactics, and not only because they are generally top secret. Instead by sinking thousands of hours into it you end up developing an intimate understanding of the mechanics that allows you to put up a fine controlled on-the-edge fighting envelope that no real life fighter pilot could ever dream of, because they don't have the freedom or intelligence* to explore the environment in such detail.

 

 

*the freedom of reproducibility and consistence of simulation and the foreign intelligence of enemy weapon systems


Edited by <Blaze>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with this, majority of playerbase is all to keen on blaming "this and that OP" instead of sucking it up and actually learning to play.

 

The phoenixes, especially the mk60 are a rather special case in my opion, and albeit they can be worked around however because of how idiotically it is modeled at the moment with the passive magic guidance it essentially removes most of the skill behind employing that weapon. Make no mistake, you can absolutely defeat it, but it's still stupid and it's very far from any kind of realism.

 

And let's be honest it's not fun to fight a platform that is borderline void of any skill that puts you on defense for multiple minutes without being able to close the distance and fight back in most scenarios. If this was a realistic misson like the old OPFORs etc. that happens once a while I'd concur it'd be an interesting fight, but the majority of people are here to have fun and/or learn day in day out and you're not learning a lot fighting a guy that presses a button at 40 miles then turns cold and goes to eat a pizza while you're still defending his missile because of scifi guidance.

 

Yeah we are on the same page here. The phoenix needs some serious fixing, as it has pretty well known limitations that could be exploited but can't be right now due to sci-fi guidance. And bringing this back to the typhoon, even with the current state of DCS you can "balance" the F14 by making "less fun" to fly (basing F14's at the back of the map, making them fly forever to get to the target zone, limiting phoenix loadouts, or introducing logistics etc). So really I don't think the Typhoon will be that "uber".

 

 

Actually you are :) missile modeling is very far from it, especially terminal guidance. CCM and ECCM modeling is extremely poor / nonexistant. Some aircraft systems are nicely modeled, but that's about it. Other environmental and support systems and general simulator core is in generally an even worse state. Take the AI AWACS for instance, it's been the same since probably FC1. You're merged and calls popups at 200 miles.

 

As I described, the tactics found in DCS are developed based on similar phenomenon as in real life, this is why you can see basic building blocks like cranks, notches, however the overall picture of how people use it in combination is an evolution of it's own.

 

Overall I treat as if this was an alternate reality that allows me to be a fighter pilot who develops his own tactics based on this alternate reality. To me it's not super interesting to try to replicate exact real life tactics, and not only because they are generally top secret. Instead by sinking thousands of hours into it you end up developing an intimate understanding of the mechanics that allows you to put up a fine controlled on-the-edge fighting envelope that no real life fighter pilot could ever dream of, because they don't have the freedom or intelligence* to explore the environment in such detail.

 

 

*the freedom of reproducibility and consistence of simulation and the foreign intelligence of enemy weapon systems

 

No I agree, I'm a dreamer in that regard that I want DCS to be better than it is in those various areas, and I think it can and hopefully will get there at some point.

 

And I agree with you on the whole tactical development, though really if the simulator is realistic, then real world (ish) tactics should work too. I mean I take and read and then apply most of Shaw's book for example. But we also lack a lot the real world issues that actual fighter pilots have to deal with (IFF, civ traffic, ROE's etc). And outside of organized squadrons, you aren't gonna see stuff like that on the general MP servers IMO cuz it makes it less "fun"... And things like wonky IFF are really no fun in that environment cuz the lowest common denominator pilot is gonna end up buddy killing a bunch of guys cuz he has no idea what he's doing and that ruins it for everyone.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

this is a key critical thing about the eurofighter

ITS NOT COMING OUT FOR AT LEAST A YEAR AND A HALF

at that point the f-18 and f-16 will be 100 percent complete with stuff like towed decoys which help defeat stuff like meteor missiles. Not to mention there is also a chance that another company is already making a counter to it, it just isn't announced yet.

i feel like a lot of people are under the assumption that the eurofighter is this year or SOONtm

 

if people want balance they should be clamoring for a full fidelity mig-25, mig-29, su-27. All of them have at least one variant America knows about due to defections or America outright buying or NATO countries having after the fall of the soviet union

redfor also really needs a strike aircraft that isn't the frog foot, or another good multi-role aircraft

 

but lets assume that improvements to the game stop today, with no more modules except the eurofighter. With the eurofighter getting all of its bells/ whistles and it being released today

the f-14b would be the best counter to the eurofighter in terms of BVR

the phoenix is crazy and IMO underrated for high altitudes especially from tomcats launching them 30-50k feet up (which is where the eurofighter should be). missiles come down nearly 60 degrees up from ranges 60-120nm depending on the version while still going supersonic

WVR is a different story but with missiles like aim-9x's and r73s WVR is basically dead unless one of the planes catches the other unaware especially in guns range

i guess dogfighting with just guns the eurofighter will come out on top with a big advantage so i guess watch out for that.


Edited by hi41000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most modern Eurofighter for me, too. There is no reason why the timeframe 2003-2007 can't be expanded to 2003-201x. If we would stick to 2007 as the most modern, our planes would get more outdated as real time progresses. By the way, because the JF-17 is geting block 2 upgrades it is a post 2007 plane as well (2013).

 

Who told you that the JF17 is getting block2 version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GyXrZ6tl.png

 

Way I see it, Balance is for the Mission makers to decide, not the Developers.

This is correct.

 

If you want balance, a sim isn't for you.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... especially in guns range

i guess dogfighting with just guns the eurofighter will come out on top with a big advantage so i guess watch out for that.

 

Well, you will get a BFM-Monster, especially if clean (no tanks) or just one centerline tank...

 

If you merge guns only with a Typhoon and you are not in a Typhoon yourself...you better don´t ;)

  • Like 1

________________________________

 

-TITS-

 

Lead SME Eurofighter Typhoon

TrueGrit Virtual Technologies

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you will get a BFM-Monster, especially if clean (no tanks) or just one centerline tank...

 

If you merge guns only with a Typhoon and you are not in a Typhoon yourself...you better don´t ;)

 

No offense, but 3rd party devs being overly enthusiastic about the competitive air to air performance of their module gives reason to worry. I really really hope that we will not get another long and frustrating phase of issues like:

 

-Heatblurs F-14 being unbeatable in BFM (1 year before fixed), overly tanky damage model (1 year before fixed), Datalink/radar seeing air to air missiles under any circumstances (fixed after one year), undefeatable (unjammable/unchaffable/unnotchable) radar (not fixed yet), magically tracking AIM-54 (not fixed yet), Jester spotting every single missile like R2D2 (not fixed yet)

-Deka Ironworks JF-17 radar tracks being undefeatable (not fixed yet), bad radar modelling in favor of the aircraft (not fixed yet), overperforming BVR missile (fixed after 1/2 year), overperforming TGP air to air mode

 

Biases in these areas affect all modules and can create a very unrealistic environment for the entire simulator. An example is the F-14s AIM-54 tracking, which does not necessairily negatively affect the immersion of the pilot/RIO, but forces the opposition to study desync/magic tracking patterns of the missile to counter it.

 

Please do not go down the same path and try to deliver an unbiased module with all its relative weaknesses modeled with a priority that is as high as it is for its beneficial features. There are groups of people that take these things into account before deciding if they wish to support a developer and buy their module. But while these people will on average have played this game for many years, its only a minority since most people enjoy flying overperforming aircraft and using overperforming tools. The feedback you will receive will usually be biased towards that direction.


Edited by Max1mus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but 3rd party devs being overly enthusiastic about the competitive air to air performance of their module gives reason to worry.

I think his statement was more based on real life experience than it was on the game itself ;)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not like these biases are not a thing in real life with real pilots.

I didn't say they aren't.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Heatblurs F-14 being unbeatable in BFM (1 year before fixed), overly tanky damage model (1 year before fixed), undefeatable (unjammable/unchaffable/unnotchable) radar (not fixed yet), magically tracking AIM-54 (not fixed yet)

-Deka Ironworks JF-17 radar tracks being undefeatable (not fixed yet), bad radar modelling in favor of the aircraft (not fixed yet), overperforming BVR missile (fixed after 1/2 year), overperforming TGP air to air mode

:lol:

f-14 is easily beatable in terms of bfm even upon initial release

especially with the f-16 that was released 2 months after it, the hornet is also better so was the mirage etc.

a unnotchable/undefeatable radar? many dcs rios i know would laugh at that.

damage model of the f-14 was fine for what the aircraft is, do you expect the plane to disintegrate on a missile hit or something?

upon a aim-120 hit the plane is 90 percent guaranteed to lose engines, hydraulic power and ins

 

deka jf-17 radar tracks are not undefeatable, the radar in the jf-17 is actually horrendous compared to the f-16 and f-18 it has such a small range for fighter sized targets.

but do you expect radar contacts to disappear suddenly for modern fighters? they have memory of the target will typically extrapolate for a couple of seconds before losing lock.

over performing bvr missile? barely, the missile more or less hasnt changed much since release, its the amraam that was buffed to realistic levels. should deka have nerfed the sd-10 because ED messed up with the aim-120?

 

also truegrit what is the the exact process for developing a dcs module?

do you make the cockpit first with modelers until its ready to code and have the coders working on weapons, or is it some other variant?


Edited by hi41000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

f-14 is easily beatable in terms of bfm even upon initial release

especially with the f-16 that was released 2 months after it, the hornet is also better so was the mirage etc.

a unnotchable/undefeatable radar? many dcs rios i know would laugh at that.

damage model of the f-14 was fine for what the aircraft is, do you expect the plane to disintegrate on a missile hit or something?

upon a aim-120 hit the plane is 90 percent guaranteed to lose engines, hydraulic power and ins

 

deka jf-17 radar tracks are not undefeatable, the radar in the jf-17 is actually horrendous compared to the f-16 and f-18 it has such a small range for fighter sized targets.

but do you expect radar contacts to disappear suddenly for modern fighters? they have memory of the target will typically extrapolate for a couple of seconds before losing lock.

over performing bvr missile? barely, the missile more or less hasnt changed much since release, its the amraam that was buffed to realistic levels. should deka have nerfed the sd-10 because ED messed up with the aim-120?

 

also truegrit what is the the exact process for developing a dcs module?

do you make the cockpit first with modelers until its ready to code and have the coders working on weapons, or is it some other variant?

 

This is exactly what i mean by

 

[...] most people enjoy flying overperforming aircraft and using overperforming tools. The feedback you will receive will usually be biased towards that direction.

 

A thing i forgot to add which i found particularly distasteful is that the F-14 developer added a jammer with among the lowest burnthrough values for a fighter in DCS, which also flashes on and off, abusing the ECM mechanics in DCS and making HOJ impossible. In short, an excellent jammer. But the radar does not see jammers, is not affected by chaff etc. after 2 years of release.

 

I hope this developer is better and capable of interpreting whatever data/SME information objectively aswell as, more importantly, showing interest in modelling every last imperfection of the aircraft. But after 2/3 3rd parties being unable to do so with their 4th gen module, my expectations are low. Please prove us wrong and show that you can be objective.


Edited by Max1mus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thing i forgot to add which i found particularly distasteful is that the F-14 developer added a jammer with among the lowest burnthrough values for a fighter in DCS, which also flashes on and off, abusing the ECM mechanics in DCS and making HOJ impossible. In short, an excellent jammer. But the radar does not see jammers, is not affected by chaff etc. after 2 years of release.

I'm totally with you on this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247462

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much armchair fighting here with generic sweeping statements. Can we not just be excited that a beast of a modern European air superiority/swing role fighter is coming to DCS? I'd like to hope it will be 'complete' at release, but I'll be happy if we get something as good as the F-14 was at release, or where the F/A-18 and F-16 are now, with iterative improvements after that.

 

To be honest though, I am more excited for this module than any other in the history of DCS, but that's just based on my casual understanding over the years of the publicly available specifications and characteristics documented for the Eurofighter, which make it seem really quite an exceptional airframe. If people aren't complaining the Eurofighter is 'OP' when released I may even be sad. TrueGrit, you carry all my simming hopes and dreams with you. No pressure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for me this project is my f-22, ah-64, F-15E module levels of face melting but all rolled into one. My favourite plane since forever is the Ef2k and when it releases I'll probably never fly anything else

RTX 2070 8GB | 32GB DDR4 2666 RAM | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 4.2Ghz | Asrock X570 | CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle | TM MFDs | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense, but 3rd party devs being overly enthusiastic about the competitive air to air performance of their module gives reason to worry. I really really hope that we will not get another long and frustrating phase of issues like:

 

-Heatblurs F-14 being unbeatable in BFM (1 year before fixed), overly tanky damage model (1 year before fixed), Datalink/radar seeing air to air missiles under any circumstances (fixed after one year), undefeatable (unjammable/unchaffable/unnotchable) radar (not fixed yet), magically tracking AIM-54 (not fixed yet), Jester spotting every single missile like R2D2 (not fixed yet)

-Deka Ironworks JF-17 radar tracks being undefeatable (not fixed yet), bad radar modelling in favor of the aircraft (not fixed yet), overperforming BVR missile (fixed after 1/2 year), overperforming TGP air to air mode

 

Biases in these areas affect all modules and can create a very unrealistic environment for the entire simulator. An example is the F-14s AIM-54 tracking, which does not necessairily negatively affect the immersion of the pilot/RIO, but forces the opposition to study desync/magic tracking patterns of the missile to counter it.

 

Please do not go down the same path and try to deliver an unbiased module with all its relative weaknesses modeled with a priority that is as high as it is for its beneficial features. There are groups of people that take these things into account before deciding if they wish to support a developer and buy their module. But while these people will on average have played this game for many years, its only a minority since most people enjoy flying overperforming aircraft and using overperforming tools. The feedback you will receive will usually be biased towards that direction.

 

So? This is DCS. The Viper and Hornet radars overperform, until a few months ago amraams had the same issues as the phoenix. The Phoenix even with magic INS is a joke of a missile due to its trash ccm, which should be WAY lower for the C model. It's not like all those 3rd parties abandoned their modules (looking at you ED) and aren't constantly working on them. Especially for the Tomcat all the things you mention are planned. You forget this is Early Access and an open beta (more of an alpha, really).


Edited by Airhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Are you saying this as a F-14 pilot/RIO?

Sounds like you were flying not in one, but against one.

 

- F-14 too tanky Damage model? Just because it doesn't explode it does not mean it's working as intendet.

I would say it is one of the best damage models, if not the best, it even was out of the box back then.

 

- Undefeatable radar? Yeah, RIOs would indeed laugh about that.

Just because your RWR still reports a lock unexperienced RIOs still have hard work to keep a lock, not to mention mister-"Sorry, I lost the lock" in the backseat.

 

- AIM-54 was maybe OP, can't remember it, however it is UP atm. But hey, if ED is fideling with the missile behaviour, what could they do?

 

At least HB is working porperly on their modules.


Edited by Bananabrai

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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