Progress pictures on the Eurofighter Typhoon

[Hummingbird]

On 5/28/2022 at 9:34 AM, Spectre11 said:

Flight Models are typically lift, drag, side forces driven and you can tune that to match performance charts. They will surely be able to produce an FM that's close enough. It could even be accurate without you  haps knowing. Despite all the "charts available", there is a constant tweaking and changing of FMs for various aircraft and then you have all those discussions about this FM is better than that etc. Quite often it seems to come from people with no actual experience.

Hmm, I think that oversimplifies it a bit. Tuning the FM so that everything matches the real life performance charts, i.e. ITR, STR, straight line acceleration, climb rate & top speed (and for all altitudes), is obviously a complex & difficult task, otherwise it wouldn't give the various devs so much trouble. Take just HB's two other modules, the F-14 & AJS37, they still have performance discrepancy issues after several years.

 

Now finding these, if there are any, with the EF module is obviously going to be almost impossible (unless it's just completely unrealistic ofcourse and either flies like a B17 or shoots to the moon like Saturn V), since we have no official performance charts to cross reference. Hence the slight worry. But I do have confidence in the devs, esp. since there are several RL EF pilots onboard, instructors no less, so I believe the FM will be close. Ultimately though, time will tell.

Edited June 1, 2022 by Hummingbird

[Ghostraider]

Maybe the physics of the Performance are need to know bur the aknowledge from the Pilot to use it in all conditions is an other thing thats a thing you only feel by real flight under Gs

In the Sim you doesnt have Gs and you can win every Dogfight becouse you dont have the gs and other things to act on your body.

When you want to feel Gs go to a Glider Club wich have Pilots wich can fly aerobatics, and test it, its not so expensive how you thing about but an experience. I know how i talk from, my gmax was 6,5 in an MDM Fox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDM_MDM-1_Fox and the sightfield to become a little bit smaler and grayer from the sites
 

Have Fun Guys

 

[M1Combat]

The charts are not very useful.  Maybe they save you a few minutes of flying looking for the performance envelope yourself, but...  why would you do that?  We're here to fly :).

[Dragon1-1]

Unless you want to get into a dogfight, in which case they're incredibly useful, particularly for debriefing the fights. You need to know at what speed to turn, and knowing the nature of the aircraft's relationship between airspeed, ITR and STR is critical for building an effective gameplan. Once you're doing serious combat, where both opponents know what they're doing, a good gameplan is how you win from a neutral merge.

[Mapi]

@ all: Progress pictures ?

LOL

[Swift.]

On 6/7/2022 at 8:55 PM, M1Combat said:

The charts are not very useful.  Maybe they save you a few...

 

21 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Unless you want to get into a dogfight, in which case they're incredibly useful...

When I say performance charts, I don't me the EM diagrams, but the basic flight performance stuff: fuel burns, cruise speeds, TOLD, asymmetric limits.

All of which are very useful in DCS if you want to employ it in any sense more than just 'missile go brr'

[Dragon1-1]

The guy above me mentioned "performance envelope", so I assumed it was about E-M diagrams. Other stuff you mention is useful, too, if you fly realistic missions. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the Eurofighter will outright tell you most of those if you ask.  That said, they're very useful to know for mission makers, since for most part it's on them to come up with a sensible flight plan (unlike IRL, where the pilots are typically heavily involved in planning the sortie).

[M1Combat]

I mean I get it :)...  I'm just saying you can go figure it out (either the dogfight stuff or the flight stuff) and you're good.  It's not like when you're merging you're referencing a diagram looking for that one plotted line labeled "Good Corner Speed"...

 

You're flying the thing

 

The other stuff that Swift mentioned is performance envelope info as well  

 

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, M1Combat said:

I mean I get it :)...  I'm just saying you can go figure it out (either the dogfight stuff or the flight stuff) and you're good.  It's not like when you're merging you're referencing a diagram looking for that one plotted line labeled "Good Corner Speed"...

No, you drill into your head where that plotted line goes at the altitudes you're going to be working at, and try to hit it at the merge. You do use those charts to prepare for the fight. "Figure it out" is not good enough, you can get, by trail and error, an idea what to do, but you can't understand why. A pilot who does understand why and knows what else this means will reliably beat you from level merge.

Charts are not for using in-flight. They're for debriefing fights, and for memorizing important points which can be used to make decisions in combat. They're also used to understand how the aircraft behaves in which area of its flight envelope. Don't let Maverick's cavalier attitude get into your head, a real ace thinks ahead and thinks fast, in addition to more or less committing the E-M chart to memory (well, the important bits, at least). Only then can such an ace reliably and safely fly on the edge of the envelope.

[M1Combat]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

No, you drill into your head where that plotted line goes at the altitudes you're going to be working at, and try to hit it at the merge. You do use those charts to prepare for the fight. "Figure it out" is not good enough, you can get, by trail and error, an idea what to do, but you can't understand why. A pilot who does understand why and knows what else this means will reliably beat you from level merge.

Charts are not for using in-flight. They're for debriefing fights, and for memorizing important points which can be used to make decisions in combat. They're also used to understand how the aircraft behaves in which area of its flight envelope. Don't let Maverick's cavalier attitude get into your head, a real ace thinks ahead and thinks fast, in addition to more or less committing the E-M chart to memory (well, the important bits, at least). Only then can such an ace reliably and safely fly on the edge of the envelope.

That's what I said.

I'm just saying that one can derive the EM chart without having the EM chart.  The DATA is important.  Not the chart.  Get off your high horse.  You keep being super condescending assuming I don't know what I'm taking about because of your own assumption.

I'm just saying that having a chart provided by the dev of the aircraft isn't super important.  Having the data is important...  however you choose to get it.  Look at a chart...  good for you.  Go build a chart...  good for you.  fight against a known opponent and explore what the new toy does (and take notes...)...  good for you.  They all work just fine to get to the DATA that you need.

 

The CHART...  It only keeps you from going and learning the data for yourself...  AND...  you still have to go verify the chart.

 

So...  Not super important.

 

Or just go memorize a chart that you only know is "probably close enough" and then that's how you'll fight too...  Works for me

Edited June 9, 2022 by M1Combat

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

The CHART...  It only keeps you from going and learning the data for yourself...  AND...  you still have to go verify the chart.

Sorry, BS. Sure, you can make your own E-M charts the hard way. Not everyone wants to. The community can probably fill that void, yes, but why shouldn't the devs provide us with one? You're saying it's not important, but this is not the same as "community can make it, so devs shouldn't bother". Nobody is here to "learn the data oneself" by train and error, which is why we want the performance charts. Also, what you say about "data being important, not the chart" makes zero sense. The E-M chart is a particularly useful way of presenting the data, nothing more. We will have the data, sure, but presented in a way (namely, simulation behavior) that is hard for most people to visualize. Real pilots use charts all the time.

Sure, you can learn the aircraft inside and out and have a feel for the E-M diagram without ever seeing it on a chart. However, it takes thousands of hours, and is not an efficient way to train. You sound like someone who never actually tried what you're describing, and you're thinking like a gamer, not a fighter pilot. In a simulation as realistic as DCS, this is not a very effective approach. Modern air combat is too complex for a farmboy whose claim to fame is shooting pests from a cropduster to jump into the cockpit and wing it from start to finish. You need discipline, planning, knowledge and understanding. Which is what we want the devs to facilitate by giving us conveniently presented performance data.

[M1Combat]

I agree it would make our lives easier :)...  but we would still need to verify ;).

 

Every patch :).

[Dragon1-1]

Of course, the charts will need to be kept up to date, corrected when needed, and in case of possible discrepancies, tested against the sim. However, it's hardly "every patch". Just when they mess with FM, which actually happens pretty rarely in other modules. You're making mountains out of molehills. It's actually easier to make sim-specific charts than to make the sim match ones from the real manuals. 

You could just as well say we shouldn't get the systems manual, since it'd have to be updated every time they bring in new features, and it's easier to just mash buttons and flip random switches until you figure it out. In practice, of course, manual updates fall by wayside sometimes, but I hope they'll be kept reasonably up to date.

[M1Combat]

"It's actually easier to make sim-specific charts than to make the sim match ones from the real manuals."

I know :).

"You could just as well say we shouldn't get the systems manual"

Yeah...  no need until it's done :).

 

Practice makes permanent :).

 

 

Anyway...  it's a thread for progress pics :)...  Sorry for helping to drag it off topic :).

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

Yeah...  no need until it's done :).

Yeah, how about no? At least an early access guide is quite instrumental in, you know, actually being able to fly the ship. Ideally, we'd have a continuously updated manual. You're a gamer, but most of us are simmers, which means we want to take a more structured approach. And no, "practice" the way you're proposing is not practice, it's stumbling at random. You don't learn to fly an airplane by stumbling at random, and you will pick up bad habits if you try. You're free to fly the way you like, but unless you like being pasted by more disciplined pilots, sticking to SP is probably the better idea.

Oh, and don't ever try your approach in a real airplane or even a car. Relying on "practice" (that you arrived at by random stumbling) and winging it gets people killed there. 

[M1Combat]

Yikes dude.  You're SUPER condescending :).

Thanks for assuming the opposite of what I meant about practice LOL.

What I meant was that practice makes permanent...  as opposed to perfect :).  It all depends on if you're practicing right or wrong in the first place.  If you're just practicing whatever chart you're given without proving it's correct first...  well...  then you just don't know.  So again...  it's the DATA that's important and it needs to be verified, or derived if it wasn't given in the first place.  Exactly what I've said and meant from the beginning no matter how much you'd prefer to find people to point to and support your own view that you're on a higher horse to yourself.

 

Anyway...  I can tell you're just here to show everyone that high horse you think you're on so I'll leave you to it.  Just note though...  from the very moment I said something you've done nothing but try to point out how superior you think you are completely based on incorrect assumptions about me and what I've said.  You "evidently" look down on people as a first approach and "assumably" only change your mind once they've proven to you that they deserve a different treatment.  Well...  You don't know me...  and you can go stuff your assumptions that make you look both 12 and like a jerk.

 

And then you keep saying the SAME thing I'm saying.  LOL

 

I mean aside from the manual thing :)...  I just thought that was funny.  But whatevs...  I guess I'll just chalk it up to a complete lack of a sense of humor too :).

[M1Combat]

On 6/7/2022 at 12:55 PM, M1Combat said:

The charts are not very useful.  Maybe they save you a few minutes of flying looking for the performance envelope yourself, but...  why would you do that?  We're here to fly :).

Let me just try to clarify...

I don't think that the charts provided (If they are provided) should be used blindly.  We have NO idea if they are stock charts, charts built from a flight model 6 months before whatever FM we get first...  no idea.  So...  at the LEAST they need to be verified.  The absolute BEST they can do is give us a ballpark to start from (save us a few minutes).

 

But...  When I get the aircraft I'll want to fly the dang thing...  So IF we get charts I'll take a quick look and then set about verifying them.  If we don't...  I'll set about learning what would have been in them anyway.

 

Can I hazard a guess that this is pretty close to what you might do??? Please keep in mind I'm only trying to mention the overview as opposed to every step in the scientific process leading to good data...  before you decide to write out whatever 900 steps you can think of to prove to yourself that I'm a gamer and you're simmer...

[Dragon1-1]

Ah, so you don't trust the devs to give us something that's accurate to the current state of the aircraft. And then somehow make your own, supposedly more accurate ones. You're free to try, but you'll probably find what devs gave us is pretty good. It's all maths under the hood, and if you have access to the FM math (which the devs do, given that they write it), you can plot how the aircraft will behave. It's not a real physical system that needs empirical evidence to verify the maths.

So no, I'm not going to waste my time second-guessing the devs from the start. If something jumps out at me, or the charts say something works that doesn't work in the sim, then I'll start testing, recording tracks and finally submit a bug report. That's how FM and documentation issues are deal with. Practical concerns mean that sometimes, the manual can be out of date, particularly on OB. However, this is easily dealt with by keeping track of the update changelogs, and reporting issues with documentation when they crop up.

Your casual dismissal of written documentation, obliviousness to the idea of a bigger picture, plus the smiley spam, make you look like someone not likely to appreciate the depth of the simulation or observe best practices in aviation, so to speak. You said the devs shouldn't give us the charts because they are useless. This is an absurd argument. When I pointed out its absurdity, you then doubled down on that by saying we don't need any systems manual until it's 100% done (which is just as absurd, training missions often don't get done until fairly late in dev, and HB doesn't usually make ED-style feature videos, so there'd be no way to learn how anything works without it). There's a saying that goes "To err is human, to persevere in error is foolish."

[M1Combat]

I never said they shouldn't give us the charts...

 

But thanks for AGAIN deciding to be on the attack, make a bunch of assumptions and try to climb back on that high ground you were never on.

 

Seriously...  I'm 100% sure I didn't pee in your cherios so I can only assume you just did it yourself by just deciding to look down on people by default.  IMO this doesn't even have anything to do with an EM chart any more.  It only has to do with YOU trying to justify not just doing EVERYONE in this thread a damn favor and saying something like "Hey it sounds like you're saying the devs shouldn't giver us a chart because you don't trust them or because you don't think it will be accurate or because you'll need to spend some time verifying it or something..." and I would have clarified a long time ago.  Instead you chose the "be a dick" route.

 

GFY.  I'm tired of your bull<profanity>.  You made assumptions about what I meant and I've attempted to clarify from post one and you just want none of it.  Your goal is clearly to simply find someone to pick on to try to make YOURSELF feel good about YOURSELF...

You could have simply asked instead of making assumptions...  I would have clarified...

But you didn't want that...  You would rather choose to belittle people and try to find fault with them and what they say.

 

Well...  You mis-understood me.  I've clarified AND not changed a damn thing I've said...  only clarified.  I've even tried to say I'm not interested in your conversation if you're going to just make assumptions and be a jerk...

But no...  you just keep being a jerk.

 

Keep going if you like...  I don't care.  But you are certainly not going to put words in my mouth and then attack me as if I'd said them.

Or you are...  but like I said...

Edited June 13, 2022 by M1Combat

[M1Combat]

On 6/11/2022 at 3:27 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

plus the smiley spam, make you look like someone not likely to appreciate the depth of the simulation or observe best practices in aviation

Really...  My smiley did that?

Wow. 

 

You are clearly both overthinking this and underthinking it all at the same time.

Really...  LOL.

 

[Rick50]

 

Now would be a good time to dive and extend...

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It's funny how every time I see a new post notification here, a thread called Progress pictures on the Eurofighter Typhoon, I expect to see some new screenshots but apparently it never happens .

[SuliedRocket11]

28 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

It's funny how every time I see a new post notification here, a thread called Progress pictures on the Eurofighter Typhoon, I expect to see some new screenshots but apparently it never happens .

I’m in the same boat as you lad

Pls heatblur, pics

[SCPanda]

On 6/13/2022 at 3:56 PM, M1Combat said:

Really...  My smiley did that?

Wow. 

 

You are clearly both overthinking this and underthinking it all at the same time.

Really...  LOL.

 

For the record, I liked your smiley spam. :):):):)

[Harker]

I agree it would make our lives easier :)...  but we would still need to verify ;).
 
Every patch :).

Why not both? A chart from the devs would be very welcome, to at least get us started. And people like you will surely fill the community part of the equation.

I know I'd be grateful for both, since I don't have the time (and to be honest, the inclination as well) to test often.