Fitting Eurofighter into 2003-2007 timeframe of modern DCS

You want balance in multiplayer PvP? Everyone flies the same plane with the same loadout, bam, problem solved all around!

What does the term "balance" even mean in this context for a high-fidelity simulation intended to closely model the real world??

You want balance in multiplayer PvP? Everyone flies the same plane with the same loadout, bam, problem solved all around!

 

What does the term "balance" even mean in this context for a high-fidelity simulation intended to closely model the real world??

You didn't read my second comment, did you. I rarely play MP. Nevermind.

Great discussion to read through.

As we have stated, we are bringing the most modern version of the EF we can get published. We will see how far we can go.

Thanks,

Dash

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

Nice to learn that too.

Please excuse me for this question (hoping it' s not silly): any chances to get the AMI (Italian Air Force) version too?

With best compliments for your initiative, and regards.

Nice to learn that too.

 

Please excuse me for this question (hoping it' s not silly): any chances to get the AMI (Italian Air Force) version too?

With best compliments for your initiative, and regards.

Not a silly question at all!

We will start of with the German version, but add other nations !

Dash

Great discussion to read through.

As we have stated, we are bringing the most modern version of the EF we can get published. We will see how far we can go.

 

Thanks,

Dash

I'm really happy that you guys are choosing this path in bringing us the best and most modern EF that can be possibly made.

DCS is not a multiplayer FPS game were it need to have some sort of balance, otherwise we all be flying WWII warplanes because anything more modern would be breaking the balance.

I'm not necessarily advocating balancing, but it will reach a point where MP will face some issues for sure, unless we re talking about PVE.

Probably the "balancing" will regulate itself.

As it stands now, Red is already at a disadvantage due to a technological lag (which might be considered realistic, who am I to say) , that can still be compensated somewhat by tactics and skill.

However I guess there is point where the technological dominance will become so massive (likely with the EF2000s introduction ) that it just doesn't make sense anymore to fly red aircraft , unless you have a somewhat masochistic streak or limit yourself to pre- 1980 (random number ) planes on both sides.

Because who enjoys being shot down time after time?Really thats what to have to ask yourself.Who does?

I get the whole realism thing (though its somewhat ridiculous considering other aspects of DCS) , but you can work yourself up about that for weeks, in the end ppl still simply want to have fun / enjoy themselves with DCS and with few exception getting killed 99.9% of the time is not fun after a while.

So I guess at this point most ppl will choose a capable aircraft for the job , which will mean a match up between blue vs blue aircraft, or let's make that " western/euopean"

So we will see less and less ppl flying "modern" red side aircraft, they 're already a minority now.

balancing problem solved, it'll simply be blue on blue in the future.

regards,

Snappy

As I've said before, there are many possibilities to do balancing, especially assymetric balancing. One example in a Red vs. Blue scenario would be to just limit the available Eurofighter slots.

As I've said before, there are many possibilities to do balancing, especially assymetric balancing. One example in a Red vs. Blue scenario would be to just limit the available Eurofighter slots.

Possible ,yes, but expect the realism-crowd to get their pitchforks out for that one as well.

Because why would a modern air force artificially limit themselves in regards to bringing only a handful of their most effective tools for the job? Especially if that air force wants to "win" which would always be the aim.

Snappy

Possible ,yes, but expect the realism-crowd to get their pitchforks out for that one as well.

Because why would a modern air force artificially limit themselves in regards to bringing only a handful of their most effective tools for the job? Especially if that air force wants to "win" which would always be the aim.

 

Snappy

Because that force might be only a small part of a bigger coalition for example.

Possible ,yes, but expect the realism-crowd to get their pitchforks out for that one as well.

Because why would a modern air force artificially limit themselves in regards to bringing only a handful of their most effective tools for the job? Especially if that air force wants to "win" which would always be the aim.

 

 

Snappy

Or, why would a modern force send a bunch of isolated fighters in combat with no coordination or tactics beyond maaaaybe one untrained GCI calling contacts over comms?

Surely balance in a scenario is never just about the aircraft, rather the mission parameters, threats, objectives and other assets.

Whether or not the EF owns in a one on one straight fight, it’s down to the mission creators to generate a suitable environment.

Can you make i.e. F-35 from 2015 for DCS? Yes. Totally unrealistic and with nearly all systems simply made up.

Can you make i.e. Superhornet from 2010 with AESA etc? Yes. Semi realistic with some systems working close to real aircraft and many unrealistic and made up.

Can you make i.e. F-15C from 1991 Gulf War? Yes. Very realistic with nearly all systems working close to real aircraft.

That's why i would prefer close to realistic T1 Eurofighter over semi realistic semi made up T3 any time of the day. I trust they know which version is possible to disclose and which is not and have to be made up. They looks professional. Let them find out what they can model - just don't push them to model the newest variant regardless of realism.

Multiplayer could be far more successful if DCS was set up to provide an environment with a fitting timeframe and all the toys that belong to it. Obviously it isn't and it won't be either even after this comment. Balancing missions isn't just about loadouts since a lot of airframes had totally different capabilities depending on the year / model and usually in DCS only one of those configurations exist, you cannot change it.

I'm glad to see that an EF is in the works and based on what I can see about the developer group I'm hoping for an equivalent quality to the Tomcat.

However on the other hand practically any version of the EF will absolutely dumpster every other existing aircraft in DCS. Avionics might be comparable albeit still inferior on the Hornet / Viper however the flight performance both BVR and especially BFM is no contest. And that's considering an early EF configuration.

In a nutshell it'll be what the FC3 Eagle was in terms of BVR dominance, with datalink and unmatched dogfighting performance.

Multiplayer could be far more successful if DCS was set up to provide an environment with a fitting timeframe and all the toys that belong to it. Obviously it isn't and it won't be either even after this comment. Balancing missions isn't just about loadouts since a lot of airframes had totally different capabilities depending on the year / model and usually in DCS only one of those configurations exist, you cannot change it.

 

I'm glad to see that an EF is in the works and based on what I can see about the developer group I'm hoping for an equivalent quality to the Tomcat.

 

However on the other hand practically any version of the EF will absolutely dumpster every other existing aircraft in DCS. Avionics might be comparable albeit still inferior on the Hornet / Viper however the flight performance both BVR and especially BFM is no contest. And that's considering an early EF configuration.

 

In a nutshell it'll be what the FC3 Eagle was in terms of BVR dominance, with datalink and unmatched dogfighting performance.

The Hornet still has higher ITR :) It really comes down the pilot and the available weapons. Guns only, sure the eurofighter can easily spank anything, and against it you really just hoping the driver messes up.

But with heaters and then HOBS in the mix, things start to even out real quick. T/W doesn't come in to play if your hit before the second turn. The Eurofighter was designed in the era of rear aspect weapons just like the eagle and viper. The hornet was not, it doesn't need to get behind you to kill you. Many folks thought the same things about the viper, that it would demolish everything in BFM especially against the hornet, but that just hasn't been the case.

That said I'm excited to see what the typhoon can really do, I've heard nothing but praises about it, I'm very interested to see if it lives up to the hype.

The Hornet still has higher ITR :) It really comes down the pilot and the available weapons. Guns only, sure the eurofighter can easily spank anything, and against it you really just hoping the driver messes up.

 

 

 

But with heaters and then HOBS in the mix, things start to even out real quick. T/W doesn't come in to play if your hit before the second turn. The Eurofighter was designed in the era of rear aspect weapons just like the eagle and viper. The hornet was not, it doesn't need to get behind you to kill you. Many folks thought the same things about the viper, that it would demolish everything in BFM especially against the hornet, but that just hasn't been the case.

 

That said I'm excited to see what the typhoon can really do, I've heard nothing but praises about it, I'm very interested to see if it lives up to the hype.

I honestly don't know what you re talking about?? The Eurofighter is a newer aircraft AND design than the Hornet, yet you somehow claim the hornet was designed in the all-aspect era?Do some reading pls,the hornet had its first flight in 78..if anything it is the other way around.

That the viper underperforms in DCS is another topic and has not exactly to do with the "superiority" of the Hornet.

The Hornet still has higher ITR :) It really comes down the pilot and the available weapons. Guns only, sure the eurofighter can easily spank anything, and against it you really just hoping the driver messes up.

 

But with heaters and then HOBS in the mix, things start to even out real quick. T/W doesn't come in to play if your hit before the second turn. The Eurofighter was designed in the era of rear aspect weapons just like the eagle and viper. The hornet was not, it doesn't need to get behind you to kill you. Many folks thought the same things about the viper, that it would demolish everything in BFM especially against the hornet, but that just hasn't been the case.

 

That said I'm excited to see what the typhoon can really do, I've heard nothing but praises about it, I'm very interested to see if it lives up to the hype.

The Typhoon was designed AFTER the Hornet. The F/A-18 was a development of the YF-17 first flown on 9th June 1974. FF of the F/A-18 was in November 1978. At that time the first concepts already reflecting the eventual Typhoon just emerged. So it's not much newer conceptually, but nonetheless a latter design. The Typhoon was in fact designed for high ITR and nose pointing authority, but didn't live up to its hype in this respect. The intake location was selected with hintsight of TVC. In the mid 70s the future WVR combat was believed to be dominated by frontal maneuvers, brief nose pointing and HOBS capable all aspect missiles. These as well as BVR combat at supersonic speeds and high sustained turn rates up and fast with AHR missiles.

Apart of that you are ofcourse right that close aircombat is about more than thrust performance. It boils down to the pilot capable of exploiting the strengths of his and the weaknesses of the opponent's aircraft.

The Hornet still has higher ITR :) It really comes down the pilot and the available weapons. Guns only, sure the eurofighter can easily spank anything, and against it you really just hoping the driver messes up.

 

 

 

But with heaters and then HOBS in the mix, things start to even out real quick. T/W doesn't come in to play if your hit before the second turn. The Eurofighter was designed in the era of rear aspect weapons just like the eagle and viper. The hornet was not, it doesn't need to get behind you to kill you. Many folks thought the same things about the viper, that it would demolish everything in BFM especially against the hornet, but that just hasn't been the case.

 

That said I'm excited to see what the typhoon can really do, I've heard nothing but praises about it, I'm very interested to see if it lives up to the hype.

Viper has a broken FM and not modeled extra G tolerance due to seat inclination. Meanwhile the Hornet FM is severely overmedeled.

EF will have significantly better energy regaining capability than any of the other two which makes it a BVR monster just like the Eagle is. Try getting back to altitude in the Viper or the Hornet after an initial BVR shot.

Sorry I’ve only read a little on it, eurofighters history is very confusing to me, and it’s hard to find good sources there seems to be a political haze over its whole development. Akin to F-35 levels of bias

Anyways when I said design I meant when they agreed on a delta wing canard layout which is great for EM and terrible for high AOA (the wing acts like an air brake at high alphas) there’s a reason the F-22 and F-35 do not use delta wings. It’s the same reason the mirage gets trashed by the hornet, In this game.

In this day and age I’ll trade all the energy in the world for the first shot. Preserving energy is of no use when the enemy is ahead of your 3-9 but your still in his/her WEZ. Now BVR is a different story. It seems to me, hurling MRMs at high speed/altitude is something the Typhoon excels at, and the hornet is awful at.

I guess we will have to see though. There just seems like a lot “brochure” information floating around about the Typhoon and I’m skeptical of sensationalist claims that it’s THE best. Lol

The Typhoon (and Rafale, and Gripen to a lesser extent) get around the whole "terrible at high AoA" thing. Yes, a delta is draggy at high AoA, but you can overcome that with sufficient thrust, which the Eurocanards have in spades, especially the Typhoon. In fact, in many areas their performance is better than the F-35's; for example, they can supercruise much more easily.

The Typhoon (and Rafale, and Gripen to a lesser extent) get around the whole "terrible at high AoA" thing. Yes, a delta is draggy at high AoA, but you can overcome that with sufficient thrust, which the Eurocanards have in spades, especially the Typhoon. In fact, in many areas their performance is better than the F-35's; for example, they can supercruise much more easily.

Im sure that’s true, but how’s it’s nose pointing authority? Because in the bug I can dump all my energy for a kill at the drop of a hat. You can control the jet down below 100 knots and still generate angles.

MiG-29s have loads of excess power too it causes them to overshoot more often then not. Their sabotaged by their own performance, it requires excellent throttle control, at high AOA to prevent doing that. In the hornet it’s effortless.

Honestly, given that the closest Soviet fighters are FC3 Mig-29S and Su-27/33... it'd be nice to have capabilities close to what was planned for service entry if the Cold War hadn't ended... an end-of-90s version (but with more complete avionics in some areas than the early production Eurofighters actually ended up getting).

That is what has my vote.

Im sure that’s true, but how’s it’s nose pointing authority? Because in the bug I can dump all my energy for a kill at the drop of a hat. You can control the jet down below 100 knots and still generate angles.

 

MiG-29s have loads of excess power too it causes them to overshoot more often then not. Their sabotaged by their own performance, it requires excellent throttle control, at high AOA to prevent doing that. In the hornet it’s effortless.

Canards were deferred because they are detrimental to stealth.

Less than 10% of fights online end up in a merge. Even then it's typically not about how much ITR you have but rather who sees the other guy first.

In every other case it's all about sensors and energy capability. EF is a lot better in both. Especially in terms of performance when loaded with external fuel tanks.

Im sure that’s true, but how’s it’s nose pointing authority? Because in the bug I can dump all my energy for a kill at the drop of a hat. You can control the jet down below 100 knots and still generate angles.

 

MiG-29s have loads of excess power too it causes them to overshoot more often then not. Their sabotaged by their own performance, it requires excellent throttle control, at high AOA to prevent doing that. In the hornet it’s effortless.

You could already do that with the Mirage 2000 , which is an even older,non-canard delta wing design and still has a very impressive first turn and point capability, which btw also depletes all of it’s energy instantly.

Really don‘t know what kind of people you usually fly against..

Anyway , you can be sure an even newer fighter design with canards and more engine power and newer fbw will certainly not perform worse..

That the F-22 and F-35 have no delta wings has other reasons too.

You have to ask yourself, why the EF, the Rafale and the Gripen (all very agile aircraft) which were designed much later than your beloved Hornet and certainly with the advances in missiles and A/A tactics in mind during design, all use the delta wing plus canards , if it is such a flawed design?

Regards

Snappy

Im sure that’s true, but how’s it’s nose pointing authority? Because in the bug I can dump all my energy for a kill at the drop of a hat. You can control the jet down below 100 knots and still generate angles.

 

MiG-29s have loads of excess power too it causes them to overshoot more often then not. Their sabotaged by their own performance, it requires excellent throttle control, at high AOA to prevent doing that. In the hornet it’s effortless.

The Eurofighter is said to be an absolute beast in the WVR arena, having extreme maneuverability, that has not much in common with older delta wing designs. See here for example:

https://www.wired.com/2012/07/f-22-germans/

https://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/

And with the Over-the-Shoulder capability of the IRIS-T missile it can even engage bandits at its 6 o'clock.