Fitting Eurofighter into 2003-2007 timeframe of modern DCS

Since modern planes in DCS like F/A18C, F-16C, AV-8B, A-10C are modeled as 2003-2007 standard it could be a good idea to let Eurofighter fit this timeframe.

Considering the nature of DCS emphesizing realism over content it could be better to model realistic and fitting the rest of environment Eurofighter - than forcing simplified, restricted due to classified systems, avionics and weapons very modern Eurofighter outside the rest of the environment.

As a European, with EF2000 nostalgia, i'll be more than happy to kick some asses with European fighter.

I wish you success in your work and thanks for choosing Eurofighter!

I will be more than happy with any Typhoon. However, personally I am more interested in the plane and its capabilities than balanced multiplayer and would prefer the most modern Eurofighter that can be accurately modeled. We already have planes form 8 decades in DCS and I don't see this as any problem, or advantage, at all. I love to have an universal combat sim sandbox with aircraft from all eras. As time moves forward more and more newer stuff can be included in DCS and it shouldn't be stuck in an artificial 2003-2007 bracket.

The DCS Harrier is already equipped with JDAM capable BRU-70/A digital improved triple ejector rack (DITER), which were first used in combat in 2015 and can carry the TPOD on the centerline station, which only became an option in the 2010ish timeframe.

I too would prefer the most modern EF2K the devs are able to make.

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 If we would stick to 2007 as the most modern, our planes would get more outdated as real time progresses.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).

The DCS Harrier is already equipped with JDAM capable BRU-70/A digital improved triple ejector rack (DITER), which were first used in combat in 2015 and can carry the TPOD on the centerline station, which only became an option in the 2010ish timeframe.

Personally I am not against the possibilities to carry and use even latest weapons etc in DCS, as long it is technologically possible or would be possibly done so.

But, I would like to see more data on each of the doctrines and the weapons, features etc that on what year they became operational or existed.

As IMHO it is mission designer job to set the time of the mission, and that is the place where it should automatically be withdrawn equipping specific units or weapons if they were not so on that time.

The filter would be by default Off, but you could get checking warnings if something is futuristic, or you could just ignore all and keep going as you want.

The game encyclopedia would be nice to include a lot of readings about the equipment and the technical limitations by the date. So when you are making a mission, you would find every weapon specifications, short history, the date of production, service etc.

Like small informations that what countries truly used the Litening pod and what opted to something else etc.

Fitting into the time frame? Welcome to how the Mig-29 and SU-27 drivers have felt since forever.

Personally I would have been happy if ED made 1989 or 1991 the cutoff date. But that didn't happen so here we are.

I don’t agree.

If you want to simulate 2003/2007 mission you can do limitating weapons and other settings.

I hope for the most modern possible ef2000

I will be more than happy with any Typhoon. However, personally I am more interested in the plane and its capabilities than balanced multiplayer and would prefer the most modern Eurofighter that can be accurately modeled. We already have planes form 8 decades in DCS and I don't see this as any problem, or advantage, at all. I love to have an universal combat sim sandbox with aircraft from all eras. As time moves forward more and more newer stuff can be included in DCS and it shouldn't be stuck in an artificial 2003-2007 bracket.

I hope for the most modern possible ef2000

We will definitely strive for that - the more unclass details we can get - the better it will be…

I always wondered why the F18 super hornet was canceled.

I heard it wont fit the timeline of dcs, "to new and advanced".

But here we are with EF2K, I'm surprised that finally a good European fighter arrives at the horizon. I assumed that we see a swedish plane like the gripen.

From what I heard is the EF2K technological so advanced that he could dominate airspace.

Since modern planes in DCS like F/A18C, F-16C, AV-8B, A-10C are modeled as 2003-2007 standard it could be a good idea to let Eurofighter fit this timeframe

Because SPAMRAAM/PvP balance

Or we could remember Pvp is a small subset of multi-player which makes up a tiny, tiny fraction of the DCS base and forget about "balance" (we're not playing PUBG/Fortnite) and just model a great aircraft for us all to enjoy.

From what I heard is the EF2K technological so advanced that he could dominate airspace.

Well, that's what it is there for, even in real life! #RaptorSalad :pilotfly:

I wonder what the 2013 JF-17 drivers or the ~1980s-1990s Mirage/Flanker/Fulcrum drivers have to say about this supposed 2003-2007 time frame...

Fitting Eurofighter into 2003-2007 timeframe of modern DCS

I totally agree. Multiplayer, although an excellent aspect of DCS is exactly that, one aspect. Fans of it can create environments that are as balanced as they wish but that shouldn't hold back development opportunities for other cool aircraft many DCS fans would love to fly IMHO.

Exactly it is possible to balance with mission editor settings and mission design.

I don’t play MP and also if i would in the future i care about realism more then balance. So as wrote some posts up i would prefer the most recent version they can do...i would accept also some educated guessing from them.

In general no need to limit development opportunities for balancing reasons.

We will definitely strive for that - the more unclass details we can get - the better it will be…

Thanks guys....i already told you in another post, you can contact Dino Cattaneo, his Ef2000 for FSX/Prepar3d with tacpack is stunning (no dcs level but for that platform is impressive).

Maybe he could be interested in a collaboration .

In one of his blog post some time ago he was trying to understand if possible for him to develop for Dcs but he wrote it was way more difficult that for flightsim and more people was needed.

Well, that's what it is there for, even in real life! #RaptorSalad :pilotfly:

yes but it would be annoying for other players to have such advanced aircraft as enemy

yes but it would be annoying for other players to have such advanced aircraft as enemy

Just like it is for adversaries IRL too. In DCS it's up to the mission designer to balance the mission as he sees fit. There are many ways to do this (e.g. asymetric balance).

This argument comes up every time an aircraft gets announced for DCS with capabilities that did not exist in DCS before (e.g. AGM-54)...

It has nothing to do with "multiplayer balance". :)

It's just the whole enviroment. What to do with plane when you can't create even realistic singleplayer enviroment - no enemy air defence from period, no enemy AI planes to fight against, no allied aircrafts from the timeframe etc.

I trust the new guys from TrueGrit, i assume they know what they are doing considering their credentials. And they are for sure in touch with ED. Just wanted to draw attention to people claiming that, for example, the first tranche of the EF would be too old or too limited.

Even first tranche will be dominant in every A-A aspect.

It's always better to have realistic version than simplified guestimated version.

Go TrueGrit!

It has nothing to do with "multiplayer balance". :)

It's just the whole enviroment. What to do with plane when you can't create even realistic singleplayer enviroment - no enemy air defence from period, no enemy AI planes to fight against, no allied aircrafts from the timeframe etc.

 

I trust the new guys from TrueGrit, i assume they know what they are doing considering their credentials. And they are for sure in touch with ED. Just wanted to draw attention to people claiming that, for example, the first tranche of the EF would be too old or too limited.

Even first tranche will be dominant in every A-A aspect.

It's always better to have realistic version than simplified guestimated version.

 

Go TrueGrit!

Well if you look at the actual combat sorties that Typhoons flew IRL (Libya, Syria), then you will see, that we have most of the respective adversary units in DCS ;)

It has nothing to do with "multiplayer balance". :)

It's just the whole enviroment. What to do with plane when you can't create even realistic singleplayer enviroment - no enemy air defence from period, no enemy AI planes to fight against, no allied aircrafts from the timeframe etc.

 

I trust the new guys from TrueGrit, i assume they know what they are doing considering their credentials. And they are for sure in touch with ED. Just wanted to draw attention to people claiming that, for example, the first tranche of the EF would be too old or too limited.

Even first tranche will be dominant in every A-A aspect.

It's always better to have realistic version than simplified guestimated version.

 

Go TrueGrit!

You are right...but for sure i think that AI only model of advanced aircraft (su35/j10/j20/f22/f35/rafale etc) and air defenses could be easily integrated in dcs.

Probably ED will do that in the near future, I don’t think legal problems could arise from ai only models with no system modelling and AI flight model (which AFAIK is highly simplified)

Balance only matters for multiplayer, but even then, that's really a subjective viewpoint, server owners are supposed to limit aircraft availability to an era-timeline to replicate "balanced" environment and circumstances in their mind. Reality isn't balanced really so it's never a true balance, it's just that you would call it balance with your own meaning and context, the true description is Era/Timeline/Generation Accuracy, that's really it.

The only thing devs responsibility would be is providing the tools and support (API/scripting) to separate things by Era/Timeline/Generation more easily, then there's another subjective factor of where is the separator/cut-off point for the generation, is it a gray area, or is defined, the developers may pick some arbitrary-seeming number(year) according to their research or they may follow some kind of political-economic events, well yes that makes sense, but would everyone agree?

I suggest there should be profiles you could do yourself, where you could set the start and end date of each era, with the official ED profile being the one you would get out of the box.

However first to support this all the aircraft, weapons, systems, units would have to be referenced in a master table to set dates in which years they're available.

But you see there's another dillema, who decides from what to what year a unit or a system is available in objective terms, it's all subjective again, there could be some kind of collaborate effort to figure out some kind of a date everyone can agree with but it would take a lot of work.

Just look at Syria now, they're using old MiGs, so how do you even begin to think when something is too old, it's all subjective.

I think we should forget the ideas above to not do things twice, and rather have an editor that directly edits all units and weapon availability (start and end date), you would modify that in like a huge GUI page, and then make a profile (diff) out of that, just like editing controls, and call that an Era/Timeline/Generation profile and use that in a dedicated server.

All you would do then is just pick one timeline for the active session, one setting for start and end date, and the system would automatically disable/enable units/systems/weapons according to that and the ERA profile you loaded if you changed anything at all from the defaults.

You can discuss but the validity of the topic is questionable, it's only a valid topic between server owners and players more likely, but that is the kind of things that can be done, infrastructural support, but it's up to you to define the actual timelines.

The Houthi in Yemen have been complaining about multiplayer balance for over a decade now.

The Houthi in Yemen have been complaining about multiplayer balance for over a decade now.

Yet they still manage to be knocking out M1A2 tanks. Then again Arab armies never did have a reputation for military competence.

The Houthi in Yemen have been complaining about multiplayer balance for over a decade now.

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.

it not war thunder balance dont matter and should not matter , I hope for the most modern version of the Eurofighter that it possible to have