Jump to content

Question: Will the Eurofighter have a HMD


Recommended Posts

So it was deliberately chosen from that time just so you didn't have to do it, similar to how ED avoided for years doing any aircraft that had A-G radar because they didn't know how to implement it.

 

Like I said, I doubt I'll buy it then, it seems an incomplete aircraft without it, it was meant to have it, and it would have had it if the helmet manufacturer had kept up with the rest of the program.

 

 

 

You make it sound like its a massively classified system or difficult to make.

 

If we chose a later build date for our base airframe then there is even more military discussions to be had and agreements as to what we can or can not include in the public release.

 

There were so many reasons why a 2008 aircraft was picked as the base, a lot of which are classified and I can't go into but an example is the RAF were uncomfortable with meteor being included, picking an earlier model made it easier to obtain clearance and cooperation from them.

 

I have never said 100% that we won't do it just that it is very unlikely.

 

But we have no intention of Franken-Typhoon where different bits come from different tranches and time periods.

 

What you will get will be an accurate simulator of a 2008 Raf Typhoon and it will be a huge amount of fun, that much I can promise you :D

 

I've always been a warbird fan, but even I am chomping at the bit to get this aircraft finished :D

 

Pman

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Stick to your guns pman I'll be buying it either way. You guys do great workm can't wait for this and a lot of your other aircraft

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the support :D

 

P40 is getting ever closer, more news on that soon ;)

 

Pman

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment

Whoa Cap'n kamikaze, calm down. I'm fully with VEAO on this one. I want a realistic and historically accurate aircraft that is true to what has been used in reality. Pman made a pretty good comparison:

It really is no different then a Ww2 aircraft when it comes to features, you wouldn't want me to take a 1941 Spitfire and add a GGS from 1945 would you?

It's the same with the A-10C. It's a suite 3 model (IIRC) and that is why we don't have stuff that is used on modern A-10Cs (suite 7+), which also includes a HMD.

 

But I guess you're not such an aviation enthusiast, are you? I guess there are people who don't care about aviation that much and just want something competitive for mp deathmatch.

 

 

I don't want a Franken-Typhoon! :thumbup:


Edited by QuiGon

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
Whoa Cap'n kamikaze, calm down. I'm fully with VEAO on this one. I want a realistic and historically correct aircraft that is true to what has been used in reality. Pman made a pretty good comparison:

 

 

It's the same with the A-10C. It's a suite 3 model (IIRC) and that is why we don't have stuff that is used on modern A-10Cs (suite 7+), which also includes a HMD.

 

 

I don't want a Franken-Typhoon! :thumbup:

 

1+

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment

Everybody would like to have a HMD on the Typhoon; me too.

But VEAO has an agreement with the RAF, and if VEAO breaks that agreement they will very quickly be out of business. And then we won't even have a Typhoon without HMD. If the agreement says "You will not implement a HMD..." then VEAO simply cannot implement it. You don't bend the rules, not even by a iota, when you deal with the military.

So let's not expect VEAO to commit suicide just because we all want a HMD!

I will buy the module as is.

LeCuvier

Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
What you wan't more? Eurofighter Typhoon with no HMD or no Eurofighter Typhoon module?

 

I guess I'll take the one without the HMD. This is completely fine for me and should be for everyone as other already stated it.

 

Even without an HMD this should be one awesome fun module for DCS!

 

That's exactly what I think.

 

Even without the HMD, the Typhoon still a superfighter jet, clear RCS of 0.1m², super cruise capable at mach 1.6, highly maneuverable, powerful radar, powerful IRST, DASS, thrust/weight ratio of 1.15(Right?) and a bunch of other stuff.

 

Come on, the Typhoon will be the first 4.5 gen fighter jet on DCS, this is a thing.

 

I really can't wait to see it. :)

Mission: "To intercept and destroy aircraft and airborne missiles in all weather conditions in order to establish and maintain air superiority in a designated area. To deliver air-to-ground ordnance on time in any weather condition. And to provide tactical reconaissance imagery" - F-14 Tomcat Roll Call

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
You make it sound like its a massively classified system or difficult to make.

 

Errr no, that is what I am saying you're making it sound like when you say you're not allowed to add something.

 

If we chose a later build date for our base airframe then there is even more military discussions to be had and agreements as to what we can or can not include in the public release.

 

There were so many reasons why a 2008 aircraft was picked as the base, a lot of which are classified and I can't go into but an example is the RAF were uncomfortable with meteor being included, picking an earlier model made it easier to obtain clearance and cooperation from them.

 

The Meteor has only just got in service, and I mean only, I was talking with the Swedish Gripen pilot at RIAT about that specific missile because I spotted it hanging on a pylon on his plane on the static display and asked him and he said they've only had them a few weeks, leaving that out but having a Typhoon from 2010 rather than 2008 would still not be an issue WRT the Meteor.

Link to comment
The entry into RAF service (which the Typhoon is supposed to represent) was in 2007, the RAF Typhoons had full HMD capability by 2010.

 

Germany got its first one in 2003, but they were for test and evaluation, not front line service.

 

So we're talking a very narrow time period where they didn't have them.

 

That's factually incorrect the RAF took delivery of its first aircraft in 2003, on 30th June to be exact. Flight operations began in November that year and No.17 SQN was inaugurated on 17th December. RTS declaration came on 13th May 2004...

Link to comment

The first front line squadron was Number 11 and they didn't stand up as an operational one until 2007.

 

It is quite common for an air force to take delivery of their first examples several years before it gains front line service, test and evaluation is not the same as being put into service....

 

17 squadron is a test and eval unit, they are currently testing and evaluating the F-35, I would not call that "operational" usage....

Link to comment
The first front line squadron was Number 11 and they didn't stand up as an operational one until 2007.

 

The first frontline squadron was No.3F inaugurated on 31st March 2006. No.11F was the second one and stood up on 29th March 2007.

 

It is quite common for an air force to take delivery of their first examples several years before it gains front line service, test and evaluation is not the same as being put into service....

 

Ofcourse it is, but that wasn't the point. The RAF has been flying Typhoons for 7 years without HEA that's the fact, as its the fact that the capability standards available in 2008 lacked it as well.

 

As I have outlined earlier I would have liked to see a SRP4.3 equivalent aircraft as well, but that's not going to happen as we know now. I don't think that it was VEAOs decision in the first place, but the RAF's imposed compromise for the public release. Might be owed to the fact that SRP4.3 is still in service, while earlier capability standards are not.

 

At the end of the day every one is free to purchase the module or not.

But some people shojld stay realistic, with the Typhoon you'll get the most recent and advanced combat aircraft ever added to DCSW. Everyone else has thus far released 1940s to 1980s era aircraft, the A-10C being an exception.

Link to comment

You are partially correct, I forgot about #3 squadron, they did receive their aircraft on that date, but they didn't get declared operational until 2007, like #11.

 

Just because the RAF had in one capacity or another been flying them for 7 years, does not mean that they would have deployed them, that window does not open until 2007, and means at most 3 years of service without the HMD, DCS is not meant to be a simulator of test and evaluation operations, but of combat, and that means operational aircraft, so yes it is realistic in that sense, but lumping the test and evaluation period in it is not valid.

 

The truth is there are plenty of things that are emulated in DCS, and are utterly unrealistic, and that is where the argument of not including something jet because you can't do it realistically falls down, if that was the standard then there would not be much in DCS except the war birds and early jets.

 

As another poster said, if you can't simulate, for what ever reason, emulate it in some manor that would be acceptable to the MOD and to those buying it, it would give a better impression of the aircraft.

Link to comment

I wasn't talking about operational deployment as such, just about how long the aircraft were operated before they got the HMD. By that token you are wrong again, as the 29th June 2007 declaration led to the Coningsby based squadrons to stand Q readiness on a monthly rotational basis. The limited operational readiness was declared on 1st January 2008, full FOC in the AA role was declared on 1st April 2008. The multirole operational employment date was 1st July 2008.

 

I personally would have no issues with an emulated capability, but the decision stands as is and that's a pre-HEA capable standard which was the standard on which the RAF declared operational readiness.

Link to comment
Why are you still arguing?

 

Pman has said it's not happening. End of discussion.

 

You'll just have to accept that in order to get a Typhoon into DCS with MoD+RAF clearance, this was the particular block and timeframe of aircraft agreed upon.

 

^this^

 

(although he said it is "very unlikely" ;))

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

 

If that is true then how did they get away with it on older games that simulated it, eg the various incarnations of DID's EF-2000.

 

If it was in that which by todays standards is basic, and outdated, then why not have something like that, a simple sight like with the MiG-29 and Su-27, it would hardly be putting the nations security at risk, and would give a more realistic depiction of the Typhoon as you agree it was meant to be.

 

If the people they are working with in the RAF said they don't want it in (aside from the fact it's factually inaccurate in this case anyway so a complete non-issue) then it is up to ED and VEAO if they want to abide by that or risk proceeding. Just because someone else did it in the past doesn't mean they're comfortable with it. If the person in front of you runs a stoplight and a cop doesn't see them, would you run it too just because nothing happened to them?

 

When the USAF told ED to axe certain Maverick functionalities from the A-10C for example, they did it. They didn't come up with an approximation or a simplified method. They didn't make up a fantasy version of the Maverick to achieve the same ends while still not "technically" using what the USAF asked them not to represent in the game. They did as they were asked and cut the feature from it entirely. They abide by what their partners in the military asked them to do. Because that's wise if you want help and cooperation down the line. Pissing them off is unwise. That invites any number of things ranging from no cooperation on future products to lawsuits or worse. And since making as detailed a simulation as possible of an aircraft requires direct cooperation and data from a variety of sources and people, it's best to play it safe. If the RAF say "We're fine with you making ________ version of the EF-2000 if you leave out upgrades and don't represent any form of capability from ______ forward, we're on board" then that's the line. Period.


Edited by OneBlueSky

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment

I can tell you now that neither I or Pete will be going to jail for treason or any breach of security classification or contract because of a game.

Where our military partners have been specific on what can or cannot be included in the module we will abide by it 100% and will not emulate or simulate it just because.

 

Access to equipment like the Typhoon takes years of negotiations, background security checks and a whole host of hoops to jump through just to be able to sit in it and power it up so we can "play" with the buttons on the MHDD's to get accurate info.

We will not do anything to jeopardise that relationship.

 

Pete has been expressly clear in the HMD functionality for our DCS module.

We are still in discussion with our partners on other classified and sensitive information systems which is why we have not realeased a "this is what you're getting list".

When we have that definitive list, you'll be the first to know.

 

Please stop all the guessing and conjecture and trying to prove each other wrong.

We get that you're passionate about the aircraft and what we and you can do with it.

 

I can assure you it will be the most accurate Typhoon simulator in the consumer market to date and not quite on par with ASTA but close.

 

Please keep this post civilised towards each other or I'll ask the mods to close it.

 

Thanks,

Chris.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
to sit in it and power it up so we can "play" with the buttons on the MHDD's to get accurate info.

 

Wait a second... you got to sit in it and actually power it up and they let you press buttons and turn knobs?

I'm getting envious... and I mean REALLY envious!

 

Apart from this, thanks for the clear, spot-on words, Ells!

- Deutsche Tutorials und DCS Gameplay: youtube.com/Rakuzard | raku.yt/discord -
Link to comment
I can tell you now that neither I or Pete will be going to jail for treason or any breach of security classification or contract because of a game.

Where our military partners have been specific on what can or cannot be included in the module we will abide by it 100% and will not emulate or simulate it just because.

 

Access to equipment like the Typhoon takes years of negotiations, background security checks and a whole host of hoops to jump through just to be able to sit in it and power it up so we can "play" with the buttons on the MHDD's to get accurate info.

We will not do anything to jeopardise that relationship.

 

Pete has been expressly clear in the HMD functionality for our DCS module.

We are still in discussion with our partners on other classified and sensitive information systems which is why we have not realeased a "this is what you're getting list".

When we have that definitive list, you'll be the first to know.

 

Please stop all the guessing and conjecture and trying to prove each other wrong.

We get that you're passionate about the aircraft and what we and you can do with it.

 

I can assure you it will be the most accurate Typhoon simulator in the consumer market to date and not quite on par with ASTA but close.

 

Please keep this post civilised towards each other or I'll ask the mods to close it.

 

Thanks,

Chris.

 

Thanks for all the effort to bring this bird to DCS! :thumbup:

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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