Jump to content

Question: Will the Eurofighter have a HMD


Recommended Posts

Why need to be the latest? As long there isn't same thing as with KA-50 where manual and pop-up info says "not implemented" (for Air-Air mode in Viihde or RWR or IGLA-S in wingtips). Sure it is nasty when second party say "You can't implement this" but then it goes so.

 

But great thing is we don't get latest, like we get old Mig-21 instead latest, or we get a F-5E instead latest.

We get to fly in a harder way.

 

Sure it is nasty we don't get aircrafts that are exact same time frame, but close enough!

 

And Eurofighter is anyways 4.5gen, so it will come to beat everything else in the game even when it doesn't have a HMS.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment

Where is the problem? From Pman's post you guys know now that it takes more than just modeling and coding to make a DCS level module.

 

I'm completely fine that we "only" get the T1B5. It's not out yet so wait until it's released and you will maybe see that there is no need for advanced fighters even though it would be a nice to have.

Link to comment

Just for the record all RAF Typhoons are designated as FGR.4 since block 5 and T.MK3 for the twin seats.

 

I nonethless hope that we'll see the HEA implemented at some point in the future. It is part of the final FOC standard for T1 aircraft. By that token we'll most likely not see some other stuff like the MAWS or automatic expendables release implemented either as it was cleared as part of SRP 4.3 which also introduced the HEA.

 

So we are likely looking at the SRP 4.0 or SRP 4.1 standard.

Link to comment
Sorry guys we have already confirmed in other posts / updates that we are not going to make any other tranches for public release.

 

We are only going to make T1B5

 

I know this can be frustrating for you guys when you all want the latest bells and whistles but we have to respect the wishes and agreements that we have with our commercial partners, we can't risk our military relationships by over committing beyond our agreed boundaries.

 

Negotiations are continuing regarding fine tuning some specific behaviours but things like a dcs level FGR4 are just not going to happen guys, sorry.

 

Pman

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Random question, but will you guys also make a texture template for the eurofighter ??

 

im asking this since i dont want to make a whole new thread

If in doubt, full afterburner...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
I'd be perfectly happy with this no HMD for the Tiffy in DCS, and in a way its sorta a good thing, still gives them Russian planes a bit of an edge in close dogfights :thumbup:

 

When the SU-27s and MIG-29s get HMCSs for their R-73s, you won't think it is a good thing when they fire 180 degree heaters at close range while you try to get a vertical scan lock in the merge. :D

 

And sure it is frustrating not getting the HMD, but I'm still ecstatic we're getting a EF2000. In my wildest dreams I would never have thought that VAEO would get their hands on actual official military documents of such a new aircraft. Can't wait for the beta!!!

-Col. Russ Everts opinion on surface-to-air missiles: "It makes you feel a little better if it's coming for one of your buddies. However, if it's coming for you, it doesn't make you feel too good, but it does rearrange your priorities."

 

DCS Wishlist:

MC-130E Combat Talon   |   F/A-18F Lot 26   |   HH-60G Pave Hawk   |   E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound   |   EA-6A/B Prowler   |   J-35F2/J Draken   |   RA-5C Vigilante

Link to comment
When the SU-27s and MIG-29s get HMCSs for their R-73s, you won't think it is a good thing when they fire 180 degree heaters at close range while you try to get a vertical scan lock in the merge. :D

 

Seriously, FC3 level aircraft should not be more combat-capable than a Typhoon.:doh:

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment

I still don't see/agree that a basic helmet mounted sight can't be implemented, all it has to do is have circle or crosshairs and let you lock, it does not need anything more than that and that has to be better than nothing.

 

This would be a deal breaker for me, the Typhoon was always meant to have it, and the period of time it didn't have it was simply down to it being worked on while the aircraft was just getting into service, we're often told when it comes to DCS and sims that an aircraft will not be made because not enough is known about it and it could not be modeled correctly due to that, well to me this is exactly the same argument, an aircraft is being modeled, minus a system that is critical to its use, how is that any more realistic?

 

To me if you intend to make a simulation, if something is not known, then you make an educated guess at a basic functionality, there is nothing wrong with that, but just leaving that system out completely does not make your simulation more realistic, it would be more so with even a basic and very likely wrong implementation of a system than none at all.

Link to comment
I still don't see/agree that a basic helmet mounted sight can't be implemented, all it has to do is have circle or crosshairs and let you lock, it does not need anything more than that and that has to be better than nothing.

 

This would be a deal breaker for me, the Typhoon was always meant to have it, and the period of time it didn't have it was simply down to it being worked on while the aircraft was just getting into service, we're often told when it comes to DCS and sims that an aircraft will not be made because not enough is known about it and it could not be modeled correctly due to that, well to me this is exactly the same argument, an aircraft is being modeled, minus a system that is critical to its use, how is that any more realistic?

 

To me if you intend to make a simulation, if something is not known, then you make an educated guess at a basic functionality, there is nothing wrong with that, but just leaving that system out completely does not make your simulation more realistic, it would be more so with even a basic and very likely wrong implementation of a system than none at all.

 

I'm Sorry but you are incorrect.

 

We are not guessing at anything, between the security clearance the Ells and I hold we have access to all the documents for Typhoon. There is no guessing, we have to make considered decisions as to what is included in association with our military partners.

 

As I said in the posts above our air frame is based circa 2008 a year or so after T1B5 entered service with the RAF and it is entirely based on an RAF aircraft. At that time there was no HMD on those air frames, we have that confirmed by Pilots and engineers who flew and worked on those aircraft during that period.

 

So the choice is do we look to implement a system that was not on the aircraft at the time and compromise other systems (if doing one from 2010 why not do others) or do we stick to our agreed mantra with our partners and do a 2008 aircraft.

 

the likely hood is v.high that we will stick with what we have agreed with the RAF.

 

I am sorry if you view this as a deal breaker but this is just how it is

 

Pman

Link to comment

Then the Typhoon as far as I care will not be realistic, it was always meant to have it.

 

If you did a Tornado and did the F.2 with the concrete block that would be realistic, but it would not be as it was intended, and it would be missing a vital bit of equipment for its intended use, one of the main things about the Typhoon was it was giving the RAF back what it had lacked since the Phantom, a genuine dogfighter, the Tornado was not one, and one of the necessary bits of kit for that role was always the HMD even if it was late to the party.


Edited by Cap'n kamikaze
Link to comment

Cool down Kamikaze. You are right that the HMD was always part of the Typhoon's conceptual design, but it's also true that the aircraft flew without it for approx. 7 years. When they do an earlier capability standard then the lack of the HMD is by no means unrealistic. Ofcourse it would be desirable to have the "definitive" T1 standard simulated. Maybe it's something for the future. When those authorizing the use of material say you are only going to do this or that standard for a public release then it's not necessarily the teams decision, but something enforced on them. That's apparently the pillar they have to swallow and the end user as well.

Link to comment

I'm pretty sure it was not 7 years of operations without it.

 

That's apparently the pillar they have to swallow and the end user as well.

 

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.

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.

Link to comment

We have no intention of providing simplified systems to give functionality where it did not exist. On the 2008 Typhoon (our agreed basis by the way) the HMD was not implemented which is why it is very unlikely we will do it.

 

I explained this in my above post, I understand that some people always want the latest and greatest. We have our block and spec in mind and that is what the team is working so very hard to achieve :)

 

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?

 

Pman

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Easy fella, they can't just break a contract because YOU want a "guesstimated" HMD. There is nothing more to it and they were trying to explain that with like 3 or 4 posts. You can't just demand just as ED will probably never give the F-15C JHMCS+AIM-9X because that would make it op against Flanker/Fulcrum. No means no.

 

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.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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