Jump to content

** Announcing DCS: Eurofighter by Heatblur Simulations & TrueGrit!! **


Recommended Posts

vor 47 Minuten schrieb Wizard_03:

Happy there is going to be more game play options, but I can definitely see this turn into a pandora's box, of "hey the aircraft just got this new thing last week, can it be added to game" or "hey there's a promotional image of some future technology being demonstrated, can we add that too?" Or "Hey they hung this weapon on a static display of the jet, so it should be in the game too!"

 

There's a good reason Most Devs and ED go with specific time frame/Operator, It limits development number 1, and it adds real world constraints to the aircraft number 2. What my concern is; this is going to turn into, is some super, mega, hyper, giga fighter, that is basically a concept of what the designer would like the aircraft to be able to do, rather then an actual eurofighter you might encounter in the wild. In real life, countries have budgets, systems get dropped, weapons don't get implemented. You are never going to find a jet that can do everything the designers intended for it to be able to do. They don't exists in a vacuum like they do in DCS. Also By setting an expectation of time period/operator developers can have a solid reference point for roadmap, feature lists, and completion criteria. But by not setting any expectation for us end users I worry this could become,

 

Less representative of actual modern air combat, more airquake/war thunder, alt history simulator.

 

That's my Hundred cents. lol Hopefully HB/TG can strike a good balance and give us something close the real "Eurofighter Experience" That's really what I'm interested in, the actual day to day, 9 too 5, reality of being a pilot for one of these monsters. If that can pull that off, I'll be happy. I think they achieved that with the tomcat so I'm optimistic.

 

Since the available data about Eurofighter is very sparse, we will probably never get to this point. For example, every weapon available for the German Eurofighter is either confirmed or it obviously can't be integrated due to classification or mission preperation required for its use. (just hinting at Taurus) 

 

Thing is, most weapons and systems the community ask for implementation into other modules are already in use for a long time and the needed documentation is mostly available so its within a reasonable area to ask for them (although it might be unrealistic), but Truegrit/Heatblur is already trying to integrate pretty much everything they can which is not classified so there is not much left to ask for.

And yes there will always be idiots who will ask for the latest and greatest tech for the Eurofighter but pretty much everybody else understandands that it just can't be done due to classification.

 

Overall, i think there is not much to worry about.


Edited by MRTX
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Cobra847 changed the title to ** Announcing DCS: Eurofighter by Heatblur Simulations & TrueGrit!! **
19 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Well the lack of PIRATE and delayed acquisition of the meteor missile, despite it being mainly a German development, was a funding issue.

 

14 hours ago, shagrat said:

We cut the PIRATE for cost reasons, which is a bloody good addition for an Interceptor, especially with sensor fusion concept.

 

Yes, but my post was in response to the use of general purpose bombs, not PIRATE or Meteor. The lack of GPBs is not because of insufficent funding.


Edited by QuiGon
  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Happy there is going to be more game play options, but I can definitely see this turn into a pandora's box, of "hey the aircraft just got this new thing last week, can it be added to game" or "hey there's a promotional image of some future technology being demonstrated, can we add that too?" Or "Hey they hung this weapon on a static display of the jet, so it should be in the game too!"

 

There's a good reason Most Devs and ED go with specific time frame/Operator, It limits development number 1, and it adds real world constraints to the aircraft number 2. What my concern is; this is going to turn into, is some super, mega, hyper, giga fighter, that is basically a concept of what the designer would like the aircraft to be able to do, rather then an actual eurofighter you might encounter in the wild. In real life, countries have budgets, systems get dropped, weapons don't get implemented. You are never going to find a jet that can do everything the designers intended for it to be able to do. They don't exists in a vacuum like they do in DCS. Also By setting an expectation of time period/operator developers can have a solid reference point for roadmap, feature lists, and completion criteria. But by not setting any expectation for us end users I worry this could become,

 

Less representative of actual modern air combat, more airquake/war thunder, alt history simulator.

 

That's my Hundred cents. lol Hopefully HB/TG can strike a good balance and give us something close the real "Eurofighter Experience" That's really what I'm interested in, the actual day to day, 9 too 5, reality of being a pilot for one of these monsters. If that can pull that off, I'll be happy. I think they achieved that with the tomcat so I'm optimistic.

 

I believe these types of questions are quite reasonable in the case of the Eurofighter Typhoon, as it is a multi-national fighter that is adding more capabilities over time, and its capabilities vary from one user to another within the same time frame. Furthermore, it is concerning that we are working on the German version as the baseline, which is much behind the UK's Eurofighter in terms of modernization.

 

For example, in operations against ISIL, the UK's Eurofighter Typhoon employs stand-off weapons such as Storm Shadow and low-collatroal damage weapons such as Brimstone.

 

We know that the Eurofighter Typhoon has evolved into a more focused fighter on A/A roles, but even in A/G role largely attributable to weapon stations in the Eurofighter It can carry out some A/G and anti-ship missions better than some fighters that were originally designed for A/G, such as the French Rafale, making it a very interesting platform whether in A/A or A/G roles. So I think the guys' decision not to commit to a specific variant, tranche, or time frame was a wise one.

 

 

 


Edited by Mirage-4000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Wizard_03:

Happy there is going to be more game play options, but I can definitely see this turn into a pandora's box, of "hey the aircraft just got this new thing last week, can it be added to game" or "hey there's a promotional image of some future technology being demonstrated, can we add that too?" Or "Hey they hung this weapon on a static display of the jet, so it should be in the game too!"

 

There's a good reason Most Devs and ED go with specific time frame/Operator, It limits development number 1, and it adds real world constraints to the aircraft number 2. What my concern is; this is going to turn into, is some super, mega, hyper, giga fighter, that is basically a concept of what the designer would like the aircraft to be able to do, rather then an actual eurofighter you might encounter in the wild. In real life, countries have budgets, systems get dropped, weapons don't get implemented. You are never going to find a jet that can do everything the designers intended for it to be able to do. They don't exists in a vacuum like they do in DCS. Also By setting an expectation of time period/operator developers can have a solid reference point for roadmap, feature lists, and completion criteria. But by not setting any expectation for us end users I worry this could become,

 

Less representative of actual modern air combat, more airquake/war thunder, alt history simulator.

 

That's my Hundred cents. lol Hopefully HB/TG can strike a good balance and give us something close the real "Eurofighter Experience" That's really what I'm interested in, the actual day to day, 9 too 5, reality of being a pilot for one of these monsters. If that can pull that off, I'll be happy. I think they achieved that with the tomcat so I'm optimistic.

The good thing is, they aim for a later, but still not really "up-to-date" German version, if I'm not mistaken.

This alone will reduce any likelyhood of brand new additions being modeled, even if it is introduced operational.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 7 Stunden schrieb QuiGon:

 

 

Yes, but my post was in response to the use of general purpose bombs, not PIRATE or Meteor. The lack of GPBs is not because of insufficent funding.

 

Yep. And I voiced my concern, that there is a tendency to use this as an argument to not model stuff.

I am pretty sure we still have GPBs lying around, if not in German ammo bunkers, then in US bunkers in Germany and ammo storage facilities in Europe. I may be mistaken, but I think the "lack" of GPBs for the Typhoon is more related to current mission profiles than the capabilities of the platform.

I even think, pilots still learn and likely train how to drop unguided weapons in modern planes, despite them being rarely used. 

 

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 32GB | GeForce RTX 2080S - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs | a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 10:23 PM, shagrat said:

Yep. And I voiced my concern, that there is a tendency to use this as an argument to not model stuff.

I am pretty sure we still have GPBs lying around, if not in German ammo bunkers, then in US bunkers in Germany and ammo storage facilities in Europe. I may be mistaken, but I think the "lack" of GPBs for the Typhoon is more related to current mission profiles than the capabilities of the platform.

I even think, pilots still learn and likely train how to drop unguided weapons in modern planes, despite them being rarely used.

 

Neither funding nor the availability of GPBs is the issue here. As @MRTX said, we have a lot of GPBs still in use with the Tornado and the Eurofighters LGBs are GPBs with a laser guidance kit. It's just that the GPBs are not in use with the Eurofighter and pilots don't train to drop GPBs as their Eurofighters don't use them. It's that simple.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2021 at 5:30 PM, QuiGon said:

 

German Eurofighters don't have general purpose bombs. Same is true for all Eurofighters except Kuwaiti Eurofighters, which are the only ones to have GPBs on their Eurofighters AFAIK.

 

Are you sure about that? yeah I know that the Kuwaiti Eurofighters will be the first Eurofighter to integrate Mark bombs, but the UK's Eurofighters carried 1,000Ib unguided bombs during operations in 2011. 

 

 

Quote

In the spring of 2011, RAF Typhoons were deployed to Gioia del Colle Air Base in southern Italy to enforce a UN-mandated no fly zone over Libya in support of NATO’s Operation Unified Protector. Part way into the air campaign, RAF pilots employed the jet in an operational air-to surface role for the very first time. It was a good demonstration of Typhoon’s ability to conduct bombing missions in a combat situation. The weapon employed throughout the campaign was the 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway II laser guided bomb, stablemate of the 1,000lb unguided bomb – the only two air-to-surface munitions in the RAF’s multi-role Typhoon arsenal at the time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mirage-4000 said:

Are you sure about that? yeah I know that the Kuwaiti Eurofighters will be the first Eurofighter to integrate Mark bombs, but the UK's Eurofighters carried 1,000Ib unguided bombs during operations in 2011.

 

According to your own quote they did only carry Paveways:

 

Quote

The weapon employed throughout the campaign was the 1,000lb Enhanced Paveway II laser guided bomb

 

Then the quote says, that it is a stablemate of the 1,000lb unguided bomb, whatever that is supposed to mean. The Paveway is a 1,000lb unguided bomb with a laser guidance kit attached, so in order to have Paveways you need to have unguided bombs, so you can turn them into Paveways. It says nowhere, that they carried them without the Paveway kit as unguided bombs.

What's the source of this quote?


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

 

According to your own quote they did only carry Paveways:

 

 

Then the quote says, that it is a stablemate of the 1,000lb unguided bomb, whatever that is supposed to mean. The Paveway is a 1,000lb unguided bomb with a laser guidance kit attached, so in order to have Paveways you need to have unguided bombs, so you can turn them into Paveways. It says nowhere, that they carried them without the Paveway kit as unguided bombs.

What's the source of this quote?

 

 

 

The source is the Typhoon and Tempest special edition of AirForces Magazine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mirage-4000 said:

The source is the Typhoon and Tempest special edition of AirForces Magazine.

 

I see, thanks, but like I said: They don't carry unguided bombs, but they have them in the stable to add Paveway laser guidance kits to them and thus turning them into LGBs.


Edited by QuiGon

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2021 at 10:39 AM, QuiGon said:

 

I see, thanks, but like I said: They don't carry unguided bombs, but they have them in the stable to add Paveway laser guidance kits to them and thus turning them into LGBs.

 

 

 

What about this photo? you can notice the landing gear and the centerline fuel tank. it's a typhoon 

 

92732c3b-4b1a-43af-afcd-f29b88ec4bc1.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mirage-4000 said:

What about this photo? you can notice the landing gear and the centerline fuel tank. it's a typhoon

 

That's a very odd picture. The bomb on the photo looks like the old british 540 lb GPB, which was used on the Jaguar and Harrier as the text says correctly and phased out when the Harrier was decomissioned. It would be weird if this old bomb, which is no longer in service, had been mounted to a Typhoon, but maybe they did that during testing/development of the Typhoon? The picture doesn't show much. I'm not even sure if it's a Typhoon at all or maybe a Jaguar or so.

The bomb drawing on the other hand shows a typical american 500 lb Mk-82 if I'm not mistaken, which is a totally different bomb and has replaced the british 540 lb bomb in RAF service.

 

So in short: This picture doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me :huh:

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, QuiGon said:

 

That's a very odd picture. The bomb on the photo looks like the old british 540 lb GPB, which was used on the Jaguar and Harrier as the text says correctly and phased out when the Harrier was decomissioned. It would be weird if this old bomb, which is no longer in service, had been mounted to a Typhoon, but maybe they did that during testing/development of the Typhoon? The picture doesn't show much. I'm not even sure if it's a Typhoon at all or maybe a Jaguar or so.

The bomb drawing on the other hand shows a typical american 500 lb Mk-82 if I'm not mistaken, which is a totally different bomb and has replaced the british 540 lb bomb in RAF service.

 

So in short: This picture doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me :huh:

 

16 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Yeah I honestly can't tell whether the aircraft in that picture is a Typhoon or (more likely?) just a Jaguar

 

Okay, let's try to simplify things here... according to the slides, this photo is part of a set created by RAF, although I'm not sure. Why is there a Mark 82 bomb in that slide? I'm not sure why, but it may be a mistake. However, I believe the shot is for the Typhoon. and there are a few reasons for this.

 

The typhoon centerline tank is encircled by the landing gear doors, creating a very tight area for the fuel tank (which is why the 1,500L tank was not fitted at the centerline station). Furthermore, look at the pylon; it's the same pylon, same signage, and similar typhoon markings in this photo.

 

 

7093851225_391c4b847c_b.jpg

 


Edited by Mirage-4000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mirage-4000 said:

The typhoon centerline tank is encircled by the landing gear doors, creating a very tight area for the fuel tank (which is why the 1,500L tank was not fitted at the centerline station). Furthermore, look at the pylon; it's the same pylon, same signage, and similar typhoon markings in this photo.

 

Even if this is the case, it doesn't tell us anything as we don't know anything about the circumstances. As I said before, this could be a pic from the 90s when the British 540 lb GPB was still in full service and the Typhoon in development, so they might have put such a bomb (an inert one) onto the Typhoon to do some testing and evaluation. That's just one possible explanation, but there are many many others. It's all just speculation as this picture really doesn't provide anything substantial.

  • Like 1

Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 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
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
5 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

I was hoping this EF would be based on a specific variant, I will await its release and its evaluation by someone with knowledge, who can tell whether or not it looks like the real plane.

 

I know what you mean, but I don't think that has existed in any of the consortium AFs. Take of them at any moment in time and you will have at least 2 tranches and different software versions (which is not minor as some of those totally change their weapons and capacities...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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