Jump to content

Dassault Rafale Full Module


Dassault Rafale Full Module  

245 members have voted

  1. 1. Dassault Rafale Full Module

    • YES
      188
    • NO
      58


Recommended Posts

when the eruofighter was being planned, France decided to detach itself from the project and designed a plane of its own the RAFFALE.

The raffale is a nice plane but I prefer the Eurofighter much more, however I will vote yes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but I also feel like developing Gen IV+ stuff without first implementing electronic warfare in some form is kinda useless. Even now, I feel like we're missing out on a lot on tactics etc when it comes to actual engagements against SAM sites or enemy fighters. A Gen IV+ fighter in DCS would just have the same capabilities as our current Gen IV jets, with a glass cockpit and maybe better radar or whatever.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

1197644828_Screen_200911_044202-Copy.png.74d8c09ee9060cffd7408a75ab2c13ef.png

Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700K, 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro, 970 Evo Plus, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum

F/A-18C, AV-8B, JF-17, A-10C (C II), M-2000C, F-16C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3

Link to post
Share on other sites
Among the generation of so called 4.5 gen or 4++ gen fighters, Rafale is probably the prettiest, and one I may be interested in most. Yet, I would much rather prefer other things at this point.

 

Two main reasons, the first is the predictable old one: Rafale is too modern and active for it to have much of a chance to be allowed into a simulation with realistic systems, weapons, and performance figures available. French, especially the Dassault were notorious for not being too welcome to such consumer sim products, but recent collaboration between Razbam and AdA may hint at this improving. Still, Rafale is probably a bridge too far at this point.

 

The second, and for me the more weighty reason: I would much prefer some focus going back to 60s-90s aircraft. For a variety of reasons, I think they fit the best for a DCS module, and I also personally am more interested in aircraft from this period. Recently most of the major module releases were of the modern variety: Hornet, JF-17, Viper, which caused de facto cancellation of an 80s upgraded F-4E which I was very, very anticipating. Razbam is working on an F-15E, which will probably be a 90s one, but still mostly continues this trend.

 

The niche that I am really looking forward to include things like said F-4E, A-6, A-7, MiG-23, MiG-27, Su-17, Mirage III, V, and F-1, Q-5, J 35 Draken etc. Or even modernized MiG-21s and/or F-5s. At this point only MiG-23 seems to be in active development among those. F-4E seems at best a very distant dream, A-6 and A-7 are past hints by Razbam or an AI that have been put in back burner which may or may not become a module at some point. Draken is likewise. Same goes for Mirage III by Razbam. Mirage F-1 will eventually be the work item for Aviodev again, but that is some ways off obviously.

 

I'd really love seeing some of these getting into the sim, or being put into active workbench of devs again.

 

Edit: boy will this be an unpopular opinion :P...

 

Nope. I totally agree and there are ton of other folks that do too. The F4/mig23 are probably the best things that could happen for DCS in terms of new modules IMO. The F4E depending on version could cover large chunks of the cold war. It was operated in one form or another by pretty much every nato country and its multirole (yes I know different variants did did different stuff). The Mig-23 would give redfor a full on BVR capable fighter with a decent datalink (I'm pullin for ya Raz)...


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 post
Share on other sites
I voted yes, but I also feel like developing Gen IV+ stuff without first implementing electronic warfare in some form is kinda useless. Even now, I feel like we're missing out on a lot on tactics etc when it comes to actual engagements against SAM sites or enemy fighters. A Gen IV+ fighter in DCS would just have the same capabilities as our current Gen IV jets, with a glass cockpit and maybe better radar or whatever.

 

Exactly.

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 post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

Perhaps with the release of Modern Air Combat, dreams of Rafal, Eurofighter, Gripen, Su-30, 35, Super Hornet, and perhaps 5th generation aircraft will come true? Secret aircraft will be in a simplified form, GS3 level. And the developers where they will think up or fantasize the secret information themselves (so as not to wait all their lives when their favorite airplane comes out), but as secret data will be fragmented, it will appear as a full-fledged module in DCS. And the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see Gen 4+ aircraft, but i suspect its not happening anytime soon

SYSTEM SPECS: Hardware Intel Corei7-9700K @ 5.1 GHz, 32Gb RAM, EVGA 3090 XC3, Dell S2716DG, Thrustmaster Warthog + MFG Crosswinds V2, HP Reverb G2 @ 2836 x 2768
SOFTWARE: Microsoft Windows 10 Pro x64, VoiceAttack & VIACOM PRO, TacView

VR Stuff:   My Settings for 3090 and G2  My Settings for 1080ti  Shaders MOD for VR  My variant of Kegetys mod with clear water and also IC PASS for current beta & stable, Patch Status

 

1569924735_WildcardsBadgerFAASig.jpg.dbb8c2a337e37c2bfb12855f86d70fd5.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

ABout Rafale being classified...

 

Long time ago (+10 years even) there was a guy in check-six forums, apparently Thales engineer or something, who programmed a free Rafale flight simulator that you could download. At some point it got quite interesting, when he started implementing the avionics, but quickly the project and the guy just vanished.

 

I think I should have a copy somewhere, in one of my backup HDDs.

 

It was an interesting experience, but I don't think it's going to happen again


Edited by amalahama



Link to post
Share on other sites
At FC3 model will be super for Me ….

 

And what data is needed to create an FC-3 level Rafale? For the flight model-graphs of the behavior of the aircraft at different altitudes? And what else is needed? The cockpit is as the picture looks, buttons to press there is not necessary) the operating range of the radar? you can take an example from the public))) protection Systems and radio control and so we have not implemented to the full extent. Work on the land, you can leave for later further modernization or something easier to do... License from Dassault Aviation? And how does Ace Combat produce its planes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to have it, one of my most wanted aircraft for sure, it started flying in 89 (stand to be corrected), so it's not far out from what we have (we simulate 2005's hornet, 2006s falcon), why not simulate a 2000s Rafale?

Win10 64, MSI Krait Gaming Z370, I7 8700K, Geforce 1080Ti FTW3 ,32 GB Ram, Samsung 980 EVO SSD

 

Modules: Combind Arms, A-10C, F-86F, F/A-18, F-16, Flaming Cliffs, KA-50, L-39, P-51, UH-1, Christen Eagle II, Persian Gulf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Mission impossible.

It would be guestimated plane like some Raptor mods. At most FC3 standard and many systems would have to be completely ommited.

 

Dassault company wouldn't sign any license nor declassifiy EM charts, avionics, radar and other sensors capabilities, modes etc.

 

 

Not really, F/A-18C is already retired by US Navy and replaced by mix of Rhinos and F-35s, that's why we are able to have legacy Hornet faithfully modeled in the DCS. (And if you read between the lines there was still a lot of stepping on the rope to model some of the Hornet's systems by ED team...)

Hornet, Viper, Warthog, Harrier we have are variants used in 2004-2007 but the airframes are designed in 1970s.

 

It is far better to model some classic declasified planes with real performance and realistic capabilities all being possible to verify.

 

BTW: In what wars Eurofighters, Rafales, Rhinos, Raptors, Su-35 etc. took part? AT MOST some very low intensity completely asymetric bombing of some helpless insurgencies on the desert...

Even if we would be able to recreate some of them it would be extremally theoretical simulation, we have no idea how this planes would do in real symetric warfare, only guess-work.

What is more this most modern fighters have many systems which are completely classified at this point - we don't even know they exist, especially electronic warfare, radar frequency logic and parameters, detection, encryption - and this systems are crucial for their efficiency in combat.

 

DCS:F/A-18C was being Developed before the USN Rushed Retirement.

 

Legacy Hornets are still being flown by USMC, RCAF, RAAF, Spain, Finland, and a handful of others, it's not fully retired.

 

USN Rushed the Retirement of the Legacy Hornets to give reserves and USMC Parts/Airframes to help with their embarrassingly low flight readiness.

 

So the "Legacy Bug is Retired from USN Now which is the only reason we have DCS: F/A-18C" comment is false.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,

X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,

3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,

Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites
DCS:F/A-18C was being Developed before the USN Rushed Retirement.

 

Legacy Hornets are still being flown by USMC, RCAF, RAAF, Spain, Finland, and a handful of others, it's not fully retired.

 

USN Rushed the Retirement of the Legacy Hornets to give reserves and USMC Parts/Airframes to help with their embarrassingly low flight readiness.

 

So the "Legacy Bug is Retired from USN Now which is the only reason we have DCS: F/A-18C" comment is false.

 

The USN had been gradually retiring Hornets for years. UMSC needing parts/airframe was just final nail in the coffin, not the start.

 

Considering they stopped investing money in modernism C's there really was no point to keep around aged and obsolete C's in active duty service when nearing the hornets last few years the USN already have large fleet of more capable super hornets ( hell even remaining block 1's are being considered removed from active duty) especially now with F35C's entering service, not to mention additional orders for block 3 super Hornets. IF they didn't that would have mean supporting 3 airframes.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The USN had been gradually retiring Hornets for years. UMSC needing parts/airframe was just final nail in the coffin, not the start.

 

Considering they stopped investing money in modernism C's there really was no point to keep around aged and obsolete C's in active duty service when nearing the hornets last few years the USN already have large fleet of more capable super hornets ( hell even remaining block 1's are being considered removed from active duty) especially now with F35C's entering service, not to mention additional orders for block 3 super Hornets. IF they didn't that would have mean supporting 3 airframes.

 

They were being Rotated back to non-deployment RAG Sqns and older Airframes retired yes,

 

But the original plan was to do it slowly and replace w/ F-35s and Block IIIs,

 

Legacy Hornets were due to remain active in the USN to 2024.

 

The USMC Crisis forced the USN to deploy the Rapid Retirement and Transfer of all legacy Airframes.

 

Even then, there are more modern Legacy Hornets flying for other countries.

So like I said, the USN Retiring had no affect on the Hornet Module being developed, it was being developed while hornets were still flying for the USN.

 

LRIP 1-3 Airframes are in test Sqns and Museums or Have been destroyed.

Block I Super Hornets are already transferred to non-deployment roles/RAG, or Sent to Cecil to be re-built to BLKIII, the Rest went to the Blue Angels.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,

X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,

3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,

Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites
They were being Rotated back to non-deployment RAG Sqns and older Airframes retired yes,

 

But the original plan was to do it slowly and replace w/ F-35s and Block IIIs,

 

Legacy Hornets were due to remain active in the USN to 2024.

 

The USMC Crisis forced the USN to deploy the Rapid Retirement and Transfer of all legacy Airframes.

 

Even then, there are more modern Legacy Hornets flying for other countries.

So like I said, the USN Retiring had no affect on the Hornet Module being developed, it was being developed while hornets were still flying for the USN.

 

LRIP 1-3 Airframes are in test Sqns and Museums or Have been destroyed.

Block I Super Hornets are already transferred to non-deployment roles/RAG, or Sent to Cecil to be re-built to BLKIII, the Rest went to the Blue Angels.

 

i never said otherwise that ED choice to model it was because it was out of service...

 

 

but the same is the case for the F16C. Still in active duty. far more viper users around the world than Hornet operators, and still going to remain in ANG service for years to come even if USAF is gradually phasing them out for F35A's.

 

Even so ED can only manage to get dated information, hence why we have decades old derivatives of these airfames. Circa 2005 Hornet or a 2007 era Viper etc. As opposed to a present day versions of them.


Edited by Kev2go

 

 

 

Build:

 

 

 

 

 

Windows 10 64 bit,

 

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z370- E Motherboard, Intel Core i7 8700k ( Noctua NH14S cooler),Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 32gb ram (2666 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia Gtx 1080 8gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; WD 1TB HDD, Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

A M F1 variant, guns/MICA IR and dumb bombs would already be great, those variants have seen combat in Afganistan, so there is a scoop for missions here.

 

Add the CdG on top and you got something to keep you busy for some time, because a trap on this carrier in nothing like on a giant American CV...

MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX 7B86vHB1(Beta version) BIOS, AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB, 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 CL14, Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS HOTAS. My G2 is DEAD, I'll get VR again when headsets will be better.

M-2000C. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. MiG-29 "Fulcrum". 

Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
French should have gone Eurofighter not Rafale.

 

I voted NO

 

hate me :D

 

Are you kidding me? Rafale is a far better design, both aerodynamically and structurally, it doesn't need to trade structural limits for its performances quiet the opposite.

 

Stories (told by RAF Typhon pilots) of rivets popin' at 9.0 g are not uncommon, the reason is an ultimate structural limit lowered to a bare minimum to meed a TWR they couldn't reach otherwise, and that's just for the structural design part of it.

 

A Rafale is structurally capable of pulling 11.0 g with an Ultimate Structural limit of <> 1.85, way above the industry standard for 9.0 g, and their pilots do just that at nearly every meeting.

 

It has a pitch and roll authority unknown of Eurofighter pilots, especially at lower speed, where a Typhoon will become AoA and G limited, a Rafale will still be able to pull on it and even more, roll at AoA and speeds the Typhoon can only dream of, that's close-coupled canard and LEX for you.

 

None of the Eurofighter partners had enough experience of M2.0 fighters when they embarked in this venture and it shows, at the end of the day, AdlA and Rafale customers are far better off with their aircraft than if they chose to purchase Typhoon, and France didn't have to compromise design expertise with partners who didn't really care about the results.

 

I can guaranty you that not a single Rafale pilot would trade his plane for an Eurofighter Typhoon.

MSI B450 GAMING PLUS MAX 7B86vHB1(Beta version) BIOS, AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB, 32GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB (4 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 CL14, Thrustmaster T.16000M FCS HOTAS. My G2 is DEAD, I'll get VR again when headsets will be better.

M-2000C. F/A-18C Hornet. F-15C. MiG-29 "Fulcrum". 

Avatar: Escadron de Chasse 3/3 Ardennes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding me? Rafale is a far better design, both aerodynamically and structurally, it doesn't need to trade structural limits for its performances quiet the opposite.

 

Stories (told by RAF Typhon pilots) of rivets popin' at 9.0 g are not uncommon, the reason is an ultimate structural limit lowered to a bare minimum to meed a TWR they couldn't reach otherwise, and that's just for the structural design part of it.

 

A Rafale is structurally capable of pulling 11.0 g with an Ultimate Structural limit of <> 1.85, way above the industry standard for 9.0 g, and their pilots do just that at nearly every meeting.

 

It has a pitch and roll authority unknown of Eurofighter pilots, especially at lower speed, where a Typhoon will become AoA and G limited, a Rafale will still be able to pull on it and even more, roll at AoA and speeds the Typhoon can only dream of, that's close-coupled canard and LEX for you.

 

None of the Eurofighter partners had enough experience of M2.0 fighters when they embarked in this venture and it shows, at the end of the day, AdlA and Rafale customers are far better off with their aircraft than if they chose to purchase Typhoon, and France didn't have to compromise design expertise with partners who didn't really care about the results.

 

I can guaranty you that not a single Rafale pilot would trade his plane for an Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

Yeah, no bias at all... :megalol:

HANGAR

JETS : FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS : Mi-8MTV2

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...