8 JF17's delivered today to the PAF...

[Rinz1er]

So, in the past two days, supposedly the PAF received and conducted a first taxi ceremony of their new JF17 Block 3's, and I couldn't help to notice the picture of the banner from the event which was later posted on twitter.

 

 

It shows the new JF17's loaded out with PL-10E on the wingtips, Dual rack PL-15 on the outer pylons and possible the CM-400AKG on the inner pylons with a single PL-15 on the center pylon. We also see what looks like a chin mounted TGP pod. Looking forward to some videos and pictures of this thing flying IRL and I would love to see some of these additions come to Deka's model for DCS. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Rinz1er
Adding reasonable doubt to the validity of picture

[MK84]

Interesting, looks like chin pod mounting for the TGP is confirmed then.

 

Edited January 1, 2022 by MK84

[CrimsonCommissar]

In addition, Deka can finally release the HMD! Besides that, I doubt that the JF-17 will get any of the other super cool Block III stuff.

[MK84]

Here's hoping. Wouldn't mind that chin-mounted TGP.

[killkenny1]

Would be nice to see these additions if they will be confirmed and spotted IRL on Block I Jeff. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by killkenny1

[WRCRob]

HMD, Chin Mounted Tpod and the New Engine would be great to have....would certainly close the gap on the F-16. some of the newer weapons would be great especially a HOB IR missile. 

[AeriaGloria]

On 1/1/2022 at 6:30 AM, CrimsonCommissar said:

In addition, Deka can finally release the HMD! Besides that, I doubt that the JF-17 will get any of the other super cool Block III stuff.

Yeah good luck. I think it was meant hey will release HMD if someone uses it with OUR block 1+. Since these are block 3, it wouldn’t be realistic as these are technically different aircraft 

[CrimsonCommissar]

Well, the hope is exactly that. Granted, it'll probably take some time until we get any confirmation from PAF that Block 1 has the HMD but its nice to know that we can look forward to the HMD among other things.

[WarbossPetross]

7 часов назад, AeriaGloria сказал:

Yeah good luck. I think it was meant hey will release HMD if someone uses it with OUR block 1+. Since these are block 3, it wouldn’t be realistic as these are technically different aircraft 

The tweet says that fighters of previous blocks will be upgraded to block 3, so NOT having a block 3 in the sim is what wouldn't be realistic in that case

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, WarbossPetross said:

The tweet says that fighters of previous blocks will be upgraded to block 3, so NOT having a block 3 in the sim is what wouldn't be realistic in that case

Yeah well still good luck. AESA, 2022 service entry, PL-15, new HUD, they would need a line by line diagram of the new 3 axis FBW, PL-10, information on new RD-93MA, other information on updated avionics, OBOGS system, oh and information on the new HMD. 

 

if block 1 and II will be upgraded to block 3, it would not be “realistic” to leave out any of these technologies. Tell me, for this module that came out in 2019, why did we not get block II which entered service late 2015? If it had already been in service for a couple years, why did we not get it then? After all, block II only had upgraded KLJ-7, OBOGS, increased weight limit, 3rd radio for datalink, and a little more composites in the airframe. 
 

I wish you the best, but this is not as simple as adding the HMD that was tested on previous block to our current Block 1+ and saying this qualifies as a DCS module, and any Block 3 not only is so advanced as to be many many many years away but merits being sold seperately due to the gigantic amount of work involved. Coding FBW line by line is no easy task. It took many years just to get RD-93 to where it is. 
 

Aside from refueling probe, our Block 1 entered service around 2012. We didn’t get it until 2019. I applaud your lack of skepticism and unrestrained optimism, but there is no easy solution here, unless someone in Pakistan says “here is our Block 1 JF-17 that we added a HMD to and did nothing else” 

Edited January 10, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[WarbossPetross]

3 часа назад, AeriaGloria сказал:

if block 1 and II will be upgraded to block 3, it would not be “realistic” to leave out any of these technologies. Tell me, for this module that came out in 2019, why did we not get block II which entered service late 2015? If it had already been in service for a couple years, why did we not get it then? After all, block II only had upgraded KLJ-7, OBOGS, increased weight limit, 3rd radio for datalink, and a little more composites in the airframe. 

Aside from refueling probe, our Block 1 entered service around 2012. We didn’t get it until 2019. I applaud your lack of skepticism and unrestrained optimism, but there is no easy solution here, unless someone in Pakistan says “here is our Block 1 JF-17 that we added a HMD to and did nothing else”

Not having block 2 beats me as well seeing how hard it is to model the function of OBOGS and increased weight limit down to the standards of people who have never flown a plane in their lives and never will. And that's not mentioning the systems that cannot legally exist in the sim, like IFF, but they do. Equally puzzling is why all of that still matters when we are about to have a realistic simulation of a helicopter that has never, ever, ever been built and never will be, or when we (allegedly) can't have the simulation of MiG-25 because of similarities to still serving MiG-31 despite the hard fact that there's not a rivet in MiG-25 that has not been documented after the Belenko defection, foreign service and whatnot. I just don't get how people can be so comfortable sitting on so many chairs at the same time.

[killkenny1]

On 1/1/2022 at 9:21 PM, MK84 said:

Here's hoping. Wouldn't mind that chin-mounted TGP.

Ditto. People here talking about AESA, PL-12, new HUD, etc, and I juist want an additional hardpoint for TPOD...

[AeriaGloria]

6 hours ago, WarbossPetross said:

Not having block 2 beats me as well seeing how hard it is to model the function of OBOGS and increased weight limit down to the standards of people who have never flown a plane in their lives and never will. And that's not mentioning the systems that cannot legally exist in the sim, like IFF, but they do. Equally puzzling is why all of that still matters when we are about to have a realistic simulation of a helicopter that has never, ever, ever been built and never will be, or when we (allegedly) can't have the simulation of MiG-25 because of similarities to still serving MiG-31 despite the hard fact that there's not a rivet in MiG-25 that has not been documented after the Belenko defection, foreign service and whatnot. I just don't get how people can be so comfortable sitting on so many chairs at the same time.

I believe the biggest factor in not being able to make block 2 was information KLJ-7v2 radar. What is better about it? Better range? More modes? Same movement limits? Weight/power differences? Those would need to be known. 
 

As for MiG-25 it’s different country. It’s also slightly unique In that China doesn’t operate JF-17, it is an export bird made with equipment that is not top of the line in China. You could almost say it’s almost to their advantage to have it represented to a certain degree. For example they didn’t allow true Mode 4 IFF, only a fake Mode “6”

[Tiger-II]

We didn't get Block 2 for the same reason we won't get Block 3.

It's too new.

I think even if the info on the RADAR was available, it still wouldn't be allowed.

DCS has a rule that the latest gen of anything will not be permitted. We won't see block 3 as a result.

I don't know how they're managing to produce a Typhoon, unless they're working on the Tranche 1 airframe that basically has nothing useful (not even the ability to self-launch LGB - that was added to Tranche 2 as an emergency addition due to Libya).

We won't see anything that carries AESA RADAR in DCS for a very long time.

IFF only exists because the way it works is simplified/unrealistic in operation.

Sad, but true.

[AeriaGloria]

On 3/12/2022 at 11:54 PM, Tiger-II said:

We didn't get Block 2 for the same reason we won't get Block 3.

It's too new.

I think even if the info on the RADAR was available, it still wouldn't be allowed.

DCS has a rule that the latest gen of anything will not be permitted. We won't see block 3 as a result.

I don't know how they're managing to produce a Typhoon, unless they're working on the Tranche 1 airframe that basically has nothing useful (not even the ability to self-launch LGB - that was added to Tranche 2 as an emergency addition due to Libya).

We won't see anything that carries AESA RADAR in DCS for a very long time.

IFF only exists because the way it works is simplified/unrealistic in operation.

Sad, but true.

They are adding Meteor to Eurofighter, a missile it didn’t have until like 2020-2021. I give up now that that’s on the table. They must have some serious good connections that are really relaxed to let them simulate Meteor

[IcedVenom]

Mi-24P has night vision goggles. In this same line of thought adding HMD to JF-17 would be much less fantastical.

Edited March 14, 2022 by IcedVenom

[AeriaGloria]

On 3/14/2022 at 10:18 AM, IcedVenom said:

Mi-24P has night vision goggles. In this same line of thought adding HMD to JF-17 would be much less fantastical.

 

I largely disagree. The NVG simulated for Mi-24P are also completely unrealistic, your eyes would be blinded by the non NVG compatible cockpit. This is simulated by all the lights being out of focus so you can’t see anything. While a NVG setup might work like this, or might be conceivable, it has ZERO interaction with the airframe. It just attaches to the pilot head

A HMD requires integration with aircraft sensors, you need sensors attached to the cockpit to sense the helmet movement. The HOTAS and symbology has to be modified to work with HMS. Deka would need to know, what symbology is shown, what information is shared. Can HMS set SPI. What are the helmet lock on modes. Does it show date link information. It’s not like there’s a HMS that we know all about that Pakistan is just Like “this exists and we can tell you how it works with the plane but we don’t use it.” The HMS you see on block 3 is probably very different then the very early HMS that Chengdu prototyped.

To me it is an order of magnitude more fantastical, these are not plug and play upgrades unless it’s designed for it from the outset 

 

 

 

[IcedVenom]

4 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I largely disagree. The NVG simulated for Mi-24P are also completely unrealistic, your eyes would be blinded by the non NVG compatible cockpit. This is simulated by all the lights being out of focus so you can’t see anything. While a NVG setup might work like this, or might be conceivable, it has ZERO interaction with the airframe. It just attaches to the pilot head

A HMD requires integration with aircraft sensors, you need sensors attached to the cockpit to sense the helmet movement. The HOTAS and symbology has to be modified to work with HMS. Deka would need to know, what symbology is shown, what information is shared. Can HMS set SPI. What are the helmet lock on modes. Does it show date link information. It’s not like there’s a HMS that we know all about that Pakistan is just Like “this exists and we can tell you how it works with the plane but we don’t use it.” The HMS you see on block 3 is probably very different then the very early HMS that Chengdu prototyped.

To me it is an order of magnitude more fantastical, these are not plug and play upgrades unless it’s designed for it from the outset 

 

 

 

That integration is a part of the Block III airframe. So is an A2A refueling option and that was included to out "Block I". The same logic can be applied here. Add only the option for HMD in mission maker settings or expand our simulated JF-17's capabilities. If you don't like it then turn it off in your multiplayer server's settings. 

I mean, for you, one person to say that others should not be allowed to enjoy the possibility of an HMD when ED is giving us triple-pylons on our BS3 Ka-50 holds no logic.

Edited March 15, 2022 by IcedVenom

[AeriaGloria]

Iced Venom, so iced you made the slippery slope more slippery

[Tiger-II]

On 3/14/2022 at 10:27 AM, AeriaGloria said:

They are adding Meteor to Eurofighter, a missile it didn’t have until like 2020-2021. I give up now that that’s on the table. They must have some serious good connections that are really relaxed to let them simulate Meteor

Yet we still struggle with PL-10 performance?

I wish ED would drop the WVR thing and get serious about modelling missile flight profiles correctly.

I'm thinking Meteor will be there in name and looks, but functionally just an AIM-120 or similar??? I can't see how they'd allow that to be represented accurately. DCS must be sufficiently "lo-fi" to allow it.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Tiger-II

[AeriaGloria]

14 hours ago, Tiger-II said:

Yet we still struggle with PL-10 performance?

I wish ED would drop the WVR thing and get serious about modelling missile flight profiles correctly.

I'm thinking Meteor will be there in name and looks, but functionally just an AIM-120 or similar??? I can't see how they'd allow that to be represented accurately. DCS must be sufficiently "lo-fi" to allow it.

 

I mean I think all the missiles that have had modern work done in them are great, including SD-10. Don’t know your problem with it, but guess that’s another thread 

[Napillo]

22 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I mean I think all the missiles that have had modern work done in them are great, including SD-10. Don’t know your problem with it, but guess that’s another thread 

I think the issue here is that developers can't use their own flight profiles for their missiles, and instead have to use the ones provided by ED. The 802ak for example having to use the harpoon profile, or the SD-10 having to use the AIM-120 profile, when it might have a two stage rocket or other things, which the missiles were designed for, and thus getting decreased performance because of it.

[Tiger-II]

On 3/16/2022 at 8:47 PM, AeriaGloria said:

I mean I think all the missiles that have had modern work done in them are great, including SD-10. Don’t know your problem with it, but guess that’s another thread 

In DCS, the missiles are "OK", but they aren't correct.

Unless it changed recently, SAMs fire AT you rather than the missile flying more correct flight paths for the missle type.

So my point was this: for Meteor to be included must be due to the fact the performance in DCS is not accurate to the real missile. It carries the Meteor look and name, but that's it.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Tiger-II

[AeriaGloria]

13 hours ago, Tiger-II said:

In DCS, the missiles are "OK", but they aren't correct.

Unless it changed recently, SAMs fire AT you rather than the missile flying more correct flight paths for the missle type.

So my point was this: for Meteor to be included must be due to the fact the performance in DCS is not accurate to the real missile. It carries the Meteor look and name, but that's it.

 

Some SAMs only have pure pursuit. For Tunguska and other SACLOS systems this is correct. I’m not sure SA-2 still on out has pure pursuit but the real SA-2 has pure pursuit as an option. Plenty of SAMs do have proportional navigation, the IR SAMs, the patriot, plenty will pull lead just not exact lead becuase it’s either proportional navigation or advanced proportional navigation using range informarion. SD-10 uses the same guidance principle 

[Napillo]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

it’s either proportional navigation or advanced proportional navigation using range informarion

not sure what that is, do you mean motion camouflage?