Spectre11

All German T1 twin seats and the first ten single seats are not equipped with DASS.

First hurdle taken. Now it must be brought to life.

That's only for the initial release. The stated intention is that other nations' aircraft will follow suite later on.

Check the facts and myths thread's opening post to get a clue what weapon options you might expect, dependent on the capability standard. Take into account that the module with start of with a purely AA capable variant only.

MIDS Cooperator. That's your Flight and/or Team members or wingmen if you want to call them like that. Target assignments can only be performed for COOPs. There are further functions that are applicable to COOPs only.

@Wizard_03 A careful look at the images released thus far unveils a Tranche 2/3 cockpit layout, which could be anything between Block 8 and 25. If you read the opening post in the facts and myth thread you'll recognise that the Block number is not really of relevance. TG already stated that they'll opt for the most advanced capability standard they can achieved, which is still under negotiation with licence holder. The letters are refered to as Track Cross Refence Index (TCRI). As its name implies the TCRI is uswd to cross relate tracks across the different tactical head down and head up display formats. TCRIs are automatically assigned to the highest prioritised non-friendly tracks until the limit of TCRIs is reached. If tracks are designated as targets they get a TCRI assigned when they have none yet. The pilot can use voice commands using the TCRI to designate tracks as targets, lock them or assign them as targets to a COOP. TCRIs are not shared by different COOPs however. If a COOP gets a target assigned it will get a TCRI assogned if accepted as a target. hope that clarifies your question.

What makes you think that we'll get an SRP 4.1 standard? TrueGrit has not announced the capability standard they will aim for, also due to ongoing negotiations with legal entities. To answer your question MIDS data are fused with onboard sensor tracks to produce a coherent set of fused track files. The logic for displaying tracks on the HUD is somewhat different in the Typhoon. There you get all designated targets displayed. Dependent on the standard COOPs are also displayed.

Might well be the placeholder 3D model. There have already been a couple of images showing RAF Typhoons with the PIRATE. I'm sure TG will provide an update on this.

It's not just one SME, but a couple of them! But I agree thta these circle running discussions are somewhat exhausting and pointless. Instead of being grateful of getting one of the most advanced tactical combat aircraft available today in DCS many are just ehining and complaining about all sorts of things from "how can it be realistic" over "it will spoil multiplayer balance" etc. I think that this is precisely not the kind of discussions and feedback that the developers should receive just for trying to get a modern type of aircraft into one of the best commercial combat flight sims on the market. And yes, DCS is still a game for entertainment purposes, even if it offers a great potential for being used as a cheap training sim for professional purposes. The waste majority of people here have no real world connection to military aviation at all, yet many seem to pretend to "know" and being in the position to "dpeak with authority" on subjects that they often barely understand to a full extend. Whatever I hope the Truegrit team will suceed in their quest to bring the most credible, realistic representation of the Typhoon to DCS World. I have been waiting for this since DID's superb EF2000 and am hopeful that this finally happens a quarter century later.

Sorry to say so, but that's a misleading statement. Every modern combat aircraft and even older 2nd and 3rd generation designs could pull 9g and more. From an aerodynamic perspective it's not an issue. The problem, in addition to G-LOC, is that over-ging an airframe can physically damage and even destroy the airframe. Every aircraft has a design load limit, which is typically 9 g for most modern fighters. Opposed to older designs which had no g-limiters, inferior aerodynamics and thust modern fighters can sustain 9 g and reach 9 g or more at lower speeds which translates into higher STR and ITR . The risk of airframe damage or destruction still exists and that's the reason why even over-g capable modern airframes limit the amount of g-exceedance. The Eurofighter's FCS doesn't permit over-g atm, albeit the airframe could handle it in theory.

The g-override was meant to be activated by pulling the stick beyond the spring out forces (pulling harder on the stick). The g-override capability was designed into the FCS, but has been removed, which is first and foremost a software thing to do. IIRC there was the intention to re-introduce it, but this hasn't happened. The FCS itself does not permit g-overrides beyond the 9 g load limit, with exception of brief overshots (~1 sec) in the half g range due to the high g-onset rate of up to 15 g/sec.

And now they have the problem that the wake turbulences of the airbrake adersely impact fin fatigue. The solution would have been foreplane detrim, split flaperon and/or rudder for braking.

Well an advertisement comes from a manufacturer. You'll be hard pressed to find any official source stating that. Wiki includes a lot of relevant and correct information on such subjects, but also quite a lot of hoax. It's best to verify the origin of such claims, given that a source is given. There are unfortunately a lot of persistent myths like this one, which once established are hard to get corrected as they tend to pop up over and over agaim here and there.

DASS is a suite of thrwat warning sensors and counter measures. The MAW is radar based, but not designed to target anything, but to detect and track threat missiles. The ESM isn't accurate enough to do so at this point.

There is a difference between potential capability of the missile and the platform carrying it. An over the shoulder capability is theoretically possible through LOAL. In theory it's possible to vector the missile using the HMS to produce angular coordinates and the missile uses it's IMU to vector towards the right direction the missile then acquires the target post launch. Of course it would be easier with a sensor capable of tracking the target in the rear hemisphere.

Long story cut short there is no automatism to cue any heatseeker on an incoming threat missile. The DASS isn't used for targeting either. These are myths.

Tranche 3B is dead since years. Hence T4.

The original TKF proposal from MBB had a single fin and convetional delta wings. This baseline was enhanced as a result of wind tunnel tests introducing the cranked delta and twin fins, along with many detail changes concerning fuselage and intake shaping, foreplane planform and the introduction of vary cowls on the intake lips. For the EAP technology demonstrator the single fin was indeed owed to budgetary constraints after Germany and Iraly pulled out of the ACA which was based on the TKF configuration. The eventual omission of the twin fins was first and foremost owed to the added structural weight and the return to plain deltas was owed to ease of manufacturing and a supposedly lower RCS (whatever the actual difference was). IMO the original configuration was aerodynamically superior and it's no coincidence that the proposed aerodynamic modification kit (AMK) introduces wing apec strakes or LEX to partially mitigate the longitudinal/directional stability issues of the current configuration at higher AoAs. The Typhoon has indeed a very modest AoA limit which limits its nose pointing authority and maneuverability at low speeds. Right now the FCS imposed AoA limit also constraints the aircraft's ITR performance as the AoA limit is below CL max.

It's in fact foil not paint.

Bear in mind that such equipment must be ruggerized and operable in often more extrem environmental conditions. Commercial stuff like a conventional USB stick is not designed for such conditions and you don't want such a stick getting loose and flying around in the cockpit. Another aspect is security which is massively compromised using COTS items.

Yes, it's called Portable Data Store in Eurofighter parlance.

You would be surprised how many bugs real aircraft have, with the difference that these include hardware deficiencies, that are indirectly accounting for additional software bugs in game where even the hardware is coded. So nothing unusual here and probably more realistic than a bug free simulation of an aircraft that is buggy in reality. At the ende of the day you can still operate the aircraft, can't you?

Thanks for the feedback. Drop 1 was based on SRP 4.3 anf was not adopted by other nations than the UK. I know that Italy was interested, whether they got it through a mutual support agreement isn't known to me. Drop 3 as well as Drop 4 were both developed in a quadrinational approach, but managed by the nations rather than Eurofighter. Drop 3 was eventually internationalised by EF GmbH as T1EP1 and has thus far been introduced by the UK, IT and AUT. The operational state of Drop 4 is unknown to me. It was tested and it might have been introduced by the RAF as another SMA.

They are track cross reference indexes (TCRI) enabling the pilot to cross relate the most important tracks among the different displays.

Das Schrittweise fahren ist vollkommen unproblematisch. Mein Regler ist nicht genau genug und führt üblicherwiese dazu zu viel oder zu wenig Schub zu geben. Ich nutze einen Kippschalter um ein- oder auszufahren. Kurzes drücken hat minimalen Einfluss, sodass man durch mehrmaliges kurzes Drücken die nötige Entschleunigung hinbekommt. Am Ende des Tages muss da jeder halt für sich eine praktikable Lösung finden.