Typhoon Research Trip - Feb 2015 - Update

Pman · February 23, 2015

Thanks for that really detailed explanation Pman! I'm confident that you will give us the most accurate Typhoon simulation possible and that's good enough for me!

Most welcome :)

Pman

LcSummers · February 23, 2015

For me a dream is comming true.

I will by this module, no doubt about it and i know VEAO is doing everything to get it as real as it could be done. I am looking forward, hopefully we will see more little updates.

Just a question

Do you plan to make the twinseater too or is this at the moment top secret?

Thanks

Python · February 23, 2015

Just a question

Do you plan to make the twinseater too or is this at the moment top secret

I'm sure it won't be made, but I'd love to see it also, if only because it's a seriously good looking machine.

rajdary · February 23, 2015

we will bring you the most accurate simulation of a Typhoon you are going to fly outside of a military environment.
Pman

I love those words.

Thanks for the explanation, its clear, just cant wait!

Spectre11 · February 23, 2015

Exactly this and we will do our best with what we are allowed to do.

This isn't the third model re-do. To clarify we held off on the re-model until we were sure what we could and couldn't do. Now it's full speed ahead.

The team know that my deadline is 2015, Yep latter end but 2015 nonetheless.
This may delay to 2016 depending on complexity of systems.
We may release things in Beta that will be developed during Beta time or we may "slim down" things to meet the deadline and expand them during Beta.

As I said before some things will be simulated, some emulated and some using existing DCS functionality.

This is a big project but we have a great team to make it who are all passionate about making the best modules.

Thanks for your support and we'll be sure to bring you on the development journey with us.
Chris

Thanks for your feedback, it's much appreciated and I'm perfectly fine with the approach proposed, though I concur with Python. Take your self the time to finish this project and don't rush it out for the sake of it being released in 2015.

I trust you guys will deliver something great, you have the access you need and if the legal agreements are halfway settled then nothing, but the complexity of developing such a demanding module will block you.

Thank you guys again for the effort and for the great communication towards the crowd.

Ells228 · February 23, 2015

TBH I’m more and more confused reading VEAO members posts. One time you canceling a project because you are not allowed to make accurate systems modeling, other time you say that you going to “emulate” systems and procedures. Which one it is?

Don’t get me wrong, but Typhoon and its “classified status” seems to be very convenient for you, as a developer, since almost everything can be regarded as classified.

Now let’s look at Typhoon systems: flight dynamics, engine performance, comm suite, EW suite, radar & PIRATE, weapons, detailed system modelling may be (and probably will be) considered confidential. Personally I’m OK with “emulating” IFF or some functions of the Radar, datalink or EW suite but in Typhoon case it may be as much as 80-90% of aircraft. This begs a question whether it’s going to be DCS module or DCE (as emulator) egg shell module.

In this approach VEAO will always be able to say “it’s not a bug”: it’s a legal requirement, it’s our “educated guess”, it’s our calculation, its …. (put your idea), we can’t talk about it…

Saying “You will just have to trust us” seems like excuse since VEAO is still to show that they can make proper AFM, radar simulation etc. or even make cockpit & texturing to the current DCS standards.

For example let’s take FM into consideration and the fact that Typhoon is an unstable aircraft with FBW system to be modeled and compare it with AFM of F-15, Su-27 or simpler MiG-21. When they were released there were several bugs that were (still are) ironed, partially because community pointed them up and showed reference data. It clearly shows that having proper AFM is not only a matter of having all equations but also a matter of enormous amount of fine tuning testing and comparing with the real thing. It may also happen that your educated guess will be really close to the reality but due to military contract it will be downgraded. In case of mentioned modules it seems to be no legal entity saying “you are too close to the real thing – stop”

Maybe I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I fail to see the difference between Typhoon that VEAO is making and some theoretical and greatly fictional DCS F-22 module.

I do not expect to have answer to my Typhoon doubts, but maybe someone could explain to me VEAO Jekyll & Hyde style approach to realism.

When a fast jet pilot say this...

“As a current Royal Navy aggressor pilot operating the Hawk T1, I was offered the opportunity to test the VEAO Hawk. I was initially skeptical of how accurate the modelling would be of the handling and the jet engine response.

To say I was impressed would be an understatement. I found the controls and aircraft responses accurate.

The flight model performs as well as the full motion simulator used by the RAF.

Flying in formation was easy and very similar to the real thing. I was extremely impressed by the headset integration and immediately felt operational pilots could benefit from training on this software.

In short, the VEAO Hawk is more than a game and comparable to a military grade full motion simulator.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say the terrain graphics are higher fidelity whilst flying at low level.”

Lt Cdr Matt Deavin RNR

Hawk Pilot

Fast Jet Qualified Weapons Instructor

...I'll take his word over yours thank you, so we'll let you go back to being an armchair pilot and not question our flight model or systems fidelity.

In reference to Jekyll and Hyde, I have no idea what you're talking about. We are very open with the community and are consistent in our approach.

Some modules and aircraft have different restrictions as Pete said and we will adhere to those restrictions plain and simple.

X93355 · February 23, 2015

Chris, you and your team have exceptional communication / customer service skills. I think you lifted the bar for all of the developers that others now communicate better.

NineLine · February 23, 2015

In reference to Jekyll and Hyde, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Dr Jekyll = Chris

Mr Hyde = Pete

Hope that clears that up ;)

Cant wait to see what you guys do with the EF, one of a favorites for sure... (although its holding up my Lancaster I am sure :P)

Valium · February 23, 2015

If you release Eurofighter, will be manual there? I hope so, because I suspect that cockpit will be partly clickable.

Anyway, I don't know if you're going to write manual only in English or in other languages too. I'd really like to be a tester of beta if it'd be possible. I can also help to translate the whole manual from English to Polish if it'll be needed.

Pilotasso · February 23, 2015

Eurofighter will be day 1 purchase from me. :)

cichlidfan · February 23, 2015

Dr Jekyll = Chris
Mr Hyde = Pete

Hope that clears that up ;)

So that pic of both of them, at Nando's, was just Photoshop. I should have known. :lol:

Sleksa · February 23, 2015

Now lets make a clarification.

You can simulate something without it being based on a real system. If I designed a fuel system and then we simulated it that is still a simulations, an emulation I regard as a fake output with little to no dynamic live calculation taking place.

The major difference we have with Typhoon is resources and assistance from outside parties.

Things like art that you mention, I am not going to get into that again here, that is all a matter of personal opinion and preference. As with all our module s the files will be available for people to modify how they deem fit.

One thing that has become very VERY apparent to me in devloping for DCS, especially with Typhoon is that people do use these simulators for training and we are not in the business of making peoples lives more difficult. In order for us to complete work outside of the public limelight we have to play the game and play by the rules. So where agreements are made regarding things like redactments then they will be adhered to.

Will have a number of aircraft out on AFM well before the Typhoon makes an appearance so you guys will have plenty of opportunity to judge for yourselves if you think that we are capable of making an accurate FM.

For the record, the redacted items do not make up "80-90%" of the aircraft, it is far lower.

However I ask you to respect that we have to abide by our agreements with our commercial partners, working with them we will bring you the most accurate simulation of a Typhoon you are going to fly outside of a military environment.

We do take everyone's opinions on board and welcome feedback on our work, but we can't break agreements just to prove points to the community. With those things people do have to trust us as we simply can not get into a debate about some things

If anyone doubts our sources, I ask you to bear in mind the first post of this thread and that people who do not have high credentials and experience with these matters do not get access to live fighter aircraft on a live RAF base

I think it should be fairly obvious that some things can not be accurately modelled without a bunch of police appearing behind the door some morning. The Greek case with a couple of guys from Bohemia interactive's getting jailed for taking pictures of a military installation is in my opinion rather light when compared to a country's fighter's radar/IFF/navigation/datalink systems and such being spread for everyone to see through a videogame. As these things can't be accurately done, it's in my opinion the best and most obvious thing to simulate how they work without giving up the confidential information and from my professional perspective/opinon, incredible that VEAO got such good cooperation and access from RAF in the first place. Agreeing to some redactions is a trivial price to pay for such access.

Some people also forget that a lot of things aren't behaving as they are in real life, F-15's and Su-27's take off from the runway with the touch of 3 buttons (power, engines, takeoff), A-10's mid-flight programmed fuzes or mig-21's KH-66 as another example. The few people who get angry enough to write long forum posts about how these things are ruining their experience are nowhere near the amount of satisfied customers who are too busy enjoying the product's experience to the fullest to write angry forum posts about them.

Personally I'm happy about any DCS project that's bringing modern fighters into the game that currently has more helicopters and ww2 planes fully modeled, compared to fighters that are still mostly simplified fc3- legacy, barring the mig-21.

in short: Keep up the good work VEAO :thumbup:

Edited February 23, 2015 by Sleksa

spyro23 · February 23, 2015

Thank Pman for comprehensive reply, I appreciate it.

As for Ells reply:

When a fast jet pilot say this...
“As a current Royal Navy aggressor pilot operating the Hawk T1, I was offered the opportunity to test the VEAO Hawk. I was initially skeptical of how accurate the modelling would be of the handling and the jet engine response.
To say I was impressed would be an understatement. I found the controls and aircraft responses accurate.
The flight model performs as well as the full motion simulator used by the RAF.
Flying in formation was easy and very similar to the real thing. I was extremely impressed by the headset integration and immediately felt operational pilots could benefit from training on this software.
In short, the VEAO Hawk is more than a game and comparable to a military grade full motion simulator.
In fact, I would even go so far as to say the terrain graphics are higher fidelity whilst flying at low level.”

Lt Cdr Matt Deavin RNR
Hawk Pilot
Fast Jet Qualified Weapons Instructor

That is indeed very good reference. As a men with some aviation background I can say that sometimes may be not enough.

...I'll take his word over yours thank you, so we'll let you go back to being an armchair pilot and not question our flight model or systems fidelity.

OK. Why do you develop EFM then? (rhetorical question)

In reference to Jekyll and Hyde, I have no idea what you're talking about. We are very open with the community and are consistent in our approach.
Some modules and aircraft have different restrictions as Pete said and we will adhere to those restrictions plain and simple.

As for Jekyll and Hyde I meant my wrong feeling of totally different approach to realism between modules that was already explained by Pman – Thanks again.

SiThSpAwN interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde seems to be much better and a lot funnier though.:megalol:

We are very open with the community and are consistent in our approach.

“...I'll take his word over yours thank you, so we'll let you go back to being an armchair pilot and not question our flight model or systems fidelity.” Indeed, you are very open.

Spyro out.

Ells228 · February 23, 2015

Thank Pman for comprehensive reply, I appreciate it.

As for Ells reply:

OK. Why do you develop EFM then? (rhetorical question)

As for Jekyll and Hyde I meant my wrong feeling of totally different approach to realism between modules that was already explained by Pman – Thanks again.
SiThSpAwN interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde seems to be much better and a lot funnier though.:megalol:

“...I'll take his word over yours thank you, so we'll let you go back to being an armchair pilot and not question our flight model or systems fidelity.” Indeed, you are very open.

Spyro out.

We develop EFM to fine tune the flight model and for it to be a true DCS module in the community's eyes.

SFM as an example does not do stall, EFM will.

Yeah I'd have to agree with Sith there, I always thought Pete looked more like Hyde ;)

Lol did you really take that seriously, the joke is in armchair pilot?

You don't know my style of writing on the forums then ;)

Valium · February 23, 2015

Thank Pman for comprehensive reply, I appreciate it.

As for Ells reply:

That is indeed very good reference. As a men with some aviation background I can say that sometimes may be not enough.

OK. Why do you develop EFM then? (rhetorical question)

As for Jekyll and Hyde I meant my wrong feeling of totally different approach to realism between modules that was already explained by Pman – Thanks again.
SiThSpAwN interpretation of Jekyll and Hyde seems to be much better and a lot funnier though.:megalol:

“...I'll take his word over yours thank you, so we'll let you go back to being an armchair pilot and not question our flight model or systems fidelity.” Indeed, you are very open.

Spyro out.

Easy man.

If you think it doesn't make any sense, there's also other choice.

You can try to make it yourself if you can't appreciate their work.

It's cool you'd like to introduce more realism but some things cannot be released and it seems you can't understand it. If you think you make it better, try to do it but I'm sure it'll be just words. You try to give more realism but not everything is possible so I suspect it'll end up on empty promises and some day you stop to talk about it.

it will end up on empty promises.

Python · February 23, 2015

As long as it looks like a Typhoon, and flies like we know a Typhoon flies, I'll be very happy. Not being a front line fighter pilot (unfortunately!) I have zero idea how the real systems operate on a Typhoon anyway. All I know is that you guys have incredible access and an obvious passion to make the best product possible. That is enough for me.

If that isn't enough for some people, well learn from my mistake, work harder at school than I did and get yourself into a position where you can sign up to fly the real things, DCS is quite likely the next best thing.

Ells228 · February 24, 2015

As long as it looks like a Typhoon, and flies like we know a Typhoon flies, I'll be very happy. Not being a front line fighter pilot (unfortunately!) I have zero idea how the real systems operate on a Typhoon anyway. All I know is that you guys have incredible access and an obvious passion to make the best product possible. That is enough for me.

If that isn't enough for some people, well learn from my mistake, work harder at school than I did and get yourself into a position where you can sign up to fly the real things, DCS is quite likely the next best thing.

+1 or work harder at school like I did and spend 20+ years building up a career where you can afford to make DCS modules with your own money and still have the passion like I have ;)

Toxic · February 24, 2015

I'm excited! Like a kid in a candy store!

Python · February 24, 2015

+1 or work harder at school like I did and spend 20+ years building up a career where you can afford to make DCS modules with your own money and still have the passion like I have ;)

Yeah, or that.. :thumbup:

You could always move your business up to Lincolnshire, you'll save a fortune on rent, be surrounded by bases and I can pester you for a job daily... :D

Pman · February 24, 2015

Yeah, or that..

You could always move your business up to Lincolnshire, you'll save a fortune on rent, be surrounded by bases and I can pester you for a job daily... :D

He couldn't afford to move me

Pman

Alicatt · February 24, 2015

He couldn't afford to move me

Pman

LOL!

Yeah I keep thinking about what the kids are going to do when I pop off, they are going to have fun when they get their hands on all my properties and the junk in the garages :D

... and will they find the secret stash... ;)

Ells228 · February 24, 2015

Yeah, or that.. :thumbup:

You could always move your business up to Lincolnshire, you'll save a fortune on rent, be surrounded by bases and I can pester you for a job daily... :D

Haha jest not, my girlfriend actually suggested it after we watched a property show on Lincolnshire and couldn't believe the prices compared to down here.

Now wait for Pete to spit his coffee all over the monitor reading this ;)

Python · February 24, 2015

Haha, I'll make up the spare room.

Pman · February 24, 2015

Now wait for Pete to spit his coffee all over the monitor reading this ;)

Too late....

FoxHoundELite · February 24, 2015

Can i ask you this Typhoon will be modeled after the early block or the late block?

Typhoon Research Trip - Feb 2015 - Update

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members