Has the issue of modeling classified systems stalled this module’s development?

[Pilum]

Has the issue of how to model classified systems stalled this module’s development?

DCS recent announcement to do the F-35 has sparked a lot of forum discussions about the feasibility of introducing aircraft that are still in service, and since the Eurofighter faces the same problem, is this why this project appears to have stalled?

I watched the Grim Reapers Gero Finke interview, and just as I would have expected, he says that there will be a very progressive approach to introducing systems due to the problem that many are still classified.

And about 5 min into the interview, he mentions that as a consequence of this, only a limited number of systems will be modeled initially, and that system will be added if/when the information to do that becomes available given the classification issue.

So is this what is holding Heatblur back from following through on this project? As is the number of systems that can actually be modeled under these constraints just to small to make it an attractive module that will sell, or is it something else?

[MAXsenna]

I consider the Eurofighter the main star of the 2025 & Beyond video, so I highly doubt it's stalled.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Pilum]

I'm well aware that Heatblur have their hands full with the F-4 Phantom at the moment, but my thinking is more connected to the fact that the 4.5 gen Eurofighter module was announced almost 5 years ago, and that the solidly 3rd gen (i.e. nothing is classified any more) F-4 Phantom module was announced after this, but is even so nearing completion while the Eurofighter development seems to have made very little progress during these years.

Given that large parts of the now closed discussion connected to the the problems of modeling the classified systems of the 5th gen F-35 are very much applicable also to the 4.5 gen Eurofighter, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Heatblur has realized the difficulties of modeling in-service aircraft, and are acting accordingly.

 

Edited January 22 by Pilum

[Pilum]

41 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I consider the Eurofighter the main star of the 2025 & Beyond video, so I highly doubt it's stalled.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

I just watched that video but not sure I get it: In that video, if it's the one you mean, the Eurofighter makes about as much of an appearance as many others?

[JupiterJoe]

Why aren't fighter planes from World War I (bi-planes and whatnot), considered first generation fighter planes when they were literally the first generation of fighters?

Edited January 22 by JupiterJoe

[Pilum]

3 minutes ago, JupiterJoe said:

Why aren't fighter planes from the first word war (biplanes and whatnot) considered first generation fighter planes when they were literally the first generation of fighters?

AFAIK the definition "generation" as in "4th gen" etc refers to a classification of jet aircraft and that that piece of information is just left out these days.

[Spectre11]

The nth user, the nth thread  the nth repetition of the same doubts, concerns... Boring 

[Pilum]

1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:

The nth user, the nth thread  the nth repetition of the same doubts, concerns... Boring 

Well you may find it boring, but I can't agree with your "nth thread  the nth repetition" take: I just looked at your contributions on the Eurofighters timeline and there are only 5 posts during the last 6 month in two threads on the matter so if there is a problem I would not say its spamming but rather a lack of news if anything. 

Anyway, one of the contributing factors to my interest in the Eurofighter's timeline was because when I in another thread (the now merged and closed F-35 thread) claimed that the F-35 will be the first fighter module DCS does of an aircraft which is still in service, then someone "corrected" me and said that that was not true because we already have the Eurofighter in DCS.

But it now seems like that person was stretching the concept of being "in" quite a bit and so from that perspective I think it would be very interesting indeed to understand just what is behind the delay of the Eurofighter and why Heatblur took over, and just why Gero Finke is no longer (as I understand it?) part of development.

 

Edited January 22 by Pilum

[Volator]

28 minutes ago, Pilum said:

Gero Finke is no longer (as I understand it?) part of development

Huh? When, where, why? Care to elaborate?

[Pilum]

8 minutes ago, Volator said:

Huh? When, where, why? Care to elaborate?

Well AFAIK Gero Finke is one of the founders of TrueGrit Virtual Technologies, and if Heatblur have taken over and Truegrit is no loner involved, then I understood that to mean that he is no longer part of the development but maybe I'm mistaken on that point?

[Volator]

5 minutes ago, Pilum said:

Well AFAIK Gero Finke is one of the founders of TrueGrit Virtual Technologies, and if Heatblur have taken over and Truegrit is no loner involved, then I understood that to mean that he is no longer part of the development but maybe I'm mistaken on that point?

I understood it more as a joint-venture between HB and TG. I don't think TG is "out" at all.

Edited January 22 by Volator

[Czar66]

4 hours ago, Pilum said:

I'm well aware that Heatblur have their hands full with the F-4 Phantom at the moment, but my thinking is more connected to the fact that the 4.5 gen Eurofighter module was announced almost 5 years ago, and that the solidly 3rd gen (i.e. nothing is classified any more) F-4 Phantom module was announced after this, but is even so nearing completion while the Eurofighter development seems to have made very little progress during these years.

You have to take into consideration that the Phantom is a highly mechanical aircraft systems wise where DCS is already well developed in that front. Who knows how many codes from scratch the Eurofighter module needs or even core updates to get there.

4 hours ago, Pilum said:

while the Eurofighter development seems to have made very little progress during these years.

We don't know that. The public only has a very limited access to the overall progress of any product, and that 'progress' is more of a marketing technique rather than a pure behind the scenes.

[BIGNEWY]

@Pilum

The developer will always be in the best position to know what can and can not be done. They are the ones making the investment, they are the ones taking the risk with that investment.

When they are ready to share more details they will. 

thank you  

 

 

[Pilum]

9 minutes ago, Volator said:

I understood it more as a joint-venture between HB and TG. I don't think TG is "out" at all.

Well I saw a post where it was stated that HB had "taken over" from TG but maybe I read too much into that and that this should instead be interpreted as taking over the management of the module only?

[Volator]

It's probably more than just management, but I don't know more than you, it's all just guesswork. Since TG has the SMEs, I think they are still paramount to the EF project, but they might have found out that programming and designing a DCS module takes a lot more than what TG could provide in a reasonable amount of time when HB has the resources and the experience, which might have lead to TG crawling under the hood of HB. Again, all guessworkonly. I do think however that it was a smart move for both teams to join forces.

[Pilum]

Just now, BIGNEWY said:

@Pilum

The developer will always be in the best position to know what can and can not be done. They are the ones making the investment, they are the ones taking the risk with that investment.

When they are ready to share more details they will. 

thank you  

 

 

Well all those points are rather self-evident aren't they? You could say that about basically any product made by any company.

But that TG & HB obviously know what's going does not stop potential customers from finding it strange that a one module is announced 5 years ago, another 2 years later, but still becomes available much earlier?

Again, my question really stems from the fact that the Eurofighter was mentioned in the F-35 thread as an example that in-service aircraft had already been modeled in DCS, which made it all the more interesting to understand just how the Eurofighter's module was progressing.

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, Pilum said:

Well all those points are rather self-evident aren't they? You could say that about basically any product made by any company.

But that TG & HB obviously know what's going does not stop potential customers from finding it strange that a one module is announced 5 years ago, another 2 years later, but still becomes available much earlier?

Again, my question really stems from the fact that the Eurofighter was mentioned in the F-35 thread as an example that in-service aircraft had already been modeled in DCS, which made it all the more interesting to understand just how the Eurofighter's module was progressing.

When the team are ready to share more details they will. 

thank you 

[Pilum]

24 minutes ago, Czar66 said:

You have to take into consideration that the Phantom is a highly mechanical aircraft systems wise where DCS is already well developed in that front. Who knows how many codes from scratch the Eurofighter module needs or even core updates to get there.

And this is exactly my point: The F-4 is a 3rd gen aircraft with much lower complexity and no classified parts making it much easier to implement than an in-service 4.5 gen aircraft, hence the big interest in how the development of the latter is progressing.

[MAXsenna]

32 minutes ago, Pilum said:

Well I saw a post where it was stated that HB had "taken over" from TG but maybe I read too much into that and that this should instead be interpreted as taking over the management of the module only?

I believe I know which post and which user. If it's the one in thinking about. Let's say things have a tendency to get lost in translation. 

We were told TG asked HB for "help" with developing the module, due to HB's experience and expertise with coding and DCS. It's a collaboration rather. Just like HB and IFE collaborates on MSFS modules. 

25 minutes ago, Pilum said:

But that TG & HB obviously know what's going does not stop potential customers from finding it strange that a one module is announced 5 years ago, another 2 years later, but still becomes available much earlier?

Depends, partially how long and how closely one follows this forum and other SMs. I wasn't surprised at all. I do believe HB also has "multiple" teams to some degree.

Cheers! 

[MAXsenna]

5 hours ago, Pilum said:

I just watched that video but not sure I get it: In that video, if it's the one you mean, the Eurofighter makes about as much of an appearance as many others?

Finally had the time!
I re-watched and analyzed to the best of my abilities and my "failing" vision, (getting old).
I've counted cutscenes/every time the camera shifts position.

EF2000, appears 17 times.
MiG-29, 12. Including multiple cockpit shots.
F-4E, 12.
F-16C, 11.
C-130, 9. Including shots from the cargo bay.
F/A-18C, 6.

(I'm positive I saw the F-4E shoot down a MiG-23).

Also consider the EF2000 was the major "background" in the 2025 and Beyond promo art.
So, yeah! I'd say it's safe to say the development is far from having been stalled.

Cheers
 

[Spectre11]

3 hours ago, Pilum said:

Well you may find it boring, but I can't agree with your "nth thread  the nth repetition" take: I just looked at your contributions on the Eurofighters timeline and there are only 5 posts during the last 6 month in two threads on the matter so if there is a problem I would not say its spamming but rather a lack of news if anything. 

Anyway, one of the contributing factors to my interest in the Eurofighter's timeline was because when I in another thread (the now merged and closed F-35 thread) claimed that the F-35 will be the first fighter module DCS does of an aircraft which is still in service, then someone "corrected" me and said that that was not true because we already have the Eurofighter in DCS.

But it now seems like that person was stretching the concept of being "in" quite a bit and so from that perspective I think it would be very interesting indeed to understand just what is behind the delay of the Eurofighter and why Heatblur took over, and just why Gero Finke is no longer (as I understand it?) part of development.

 

I haven't participated and replied to all threads as such... This question is the most often debated in addition to the never ending "when will it be released" and "is there any news" questions. Argueably they are first and foremost inflationary raised on HB's official Discord, but have been raised here several times.

That being said, True Grit is still involved, but mainly for the licences with ED and NETMA etc. and as SMEs. They apparently underestimated the effort and have reached an agreement with HB to take over the development part. HB agreed, but has it's own projects going and priorities. TG was solely founded to bring the Eurofighter to DCS, HB had the F-4E as it next priority when it took over in addition to the further development and support for its existing modules. Unsurprisingly this meant development of the Eurofighter would take longer and got a slot in the cue after the F-4E. That's the reason why it's taking so long. It was TG to announce the Eurofighter, HB wouldn't have made that at that point in time. People often complain, but never bother to check the facts.

Concerning the "it's oh so modern bla bla", the Eurofighter is actually one of the better documented aircraft compared to many others and it's not that much more advanced than evolved F-16s or F/A-18s either, it's doable and when there is also support from the operators/manufacturers (True Grit manages the licences and agreements and consists of a bunch of former GAF pilots) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to produce a believeable, authentic representation of the real aircraft. Yes there will be omissions, but that's actually true for all aircraft, even older. Furthermore many people talk about in-service aircraft, guess what many modern aircraft incl. JF-17, A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C are all "still in service" and even they aren't 100% accurate on all accounts. Most people can't even tell the difference, but babble about it all day long and fill forum pages, chats etc. with their unqualified nonsense and wikipedia "knowledge".

Let them do their job and be patient.

 

 

 

 

[Pilum]

1 hour ago, Spectre11 said:

I haven't participated and replied to all threads as such... This question is the most often debated in addition to the never ending "when will it be released" and "is there any news" questions. Argueably they are first and foremost inflationary raised on HB's official Discord, but have been raised here several times.

That being said, True Grit is still involved, but mainly for the licences with ED and NETMA etc. and as SMEs. They apparently underestimated the effort and have reached an agreement with HB to take over the development part. HB agreed, but has it's own projects going and priorities. TG was solely founded to bring the Eurofighter to DCS, HB had the F-4E as it next priority when it took over in addition to the further development and support for its existing modules. Unsurprisingly this meant development of the Eurofighter would take longer and got a slot in the cue after the F-4E. That's the reason why it's taking so long. It was TG to announce the Eurofighter, HB wouldn't have made that at that point in time. People often complain, but never bother to check the facts.

Concerning the "it's oh so modern bla bla", the Eurofighter is actually one of the better documented aircraft compared to many others and it's not that much more advanced than evolved F-16s or F/A-18s either, it's doable and when there is also support from the operators/manufacturers (True Grit manages the licences and agreements and consists of a bunch of former GAF pilots) there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to produce a believeable, authentic representation of the real aircraft. Yes there will be omissions, but that's actually true for all aircraft, even older. Furthermore many people talk about in-service aircraft, guess what many modern aircraft incl. JF-17, A-10C, F-16C and F/A-18C are all "still in service" and even they aren't 100% accurate on all accounts. Most people can't even tell the difference, but babble about it all day long and fill forum pages, chats etc. with their unqualified nonsense and wikipedia "knowledge".

Let them do their job and be patient.

 

Much of what you say about the reasons for the delay may well be true. However, I think it would be fair to say that we are all just speculating. And in this context I would like to add something:

I think many in this forum are a bit optimistic as to what former pilots (and engineer’s like myself for that matter) could bring to the table for DCS module development when it comes to classified systems we have worked with. And this is because after a while, your knowledge base whatever your profession, be it engineer or pilot, will be a mix of open and classified knowledge which you use (or used to use ) daily in your job. And it’s therefore very difficult when you are confronted with a question in the area of your expertise, to know weather you can answer it or not without divulging things you shouldn’t.

I already mentioned in another thread that I worked with EW previously, and for sure, I could refer to open sources to answer many questions in this forum related to EW if I wanted to. And believe me it’s tempting to do so sometimes when you know something. But the conundrum here is that even if you are referring to open sources, you may be guiding other parties in a way based on your classified knowledge. This may be a bit difficult to grasp unless you worked with classified data before, but the only way to be sure (at least if you worked for a number of years) is to not touch stuff at all that you signed an NDA for. And for me that is EW. But I dabble in another area which is classified: Missile kinematics. But I can do that since I never worked in that area professionally, and all my knowledge is therefore 100% based on open sources. So missile kinematics yes, but EW is a big no-no for me. So again, those GAF Eurofighter pilots probably won’t be able to help much with the modeling of classified systems in DCS. It’s as simple as that.

I don’t think sigs show up anymore, but mine is an Old Crow motto from the world of EW: “Those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk”.

And this is of course not only applicable EW engineers, but very much to military pilots as well.

So this is why I would not be surprised at all if a flight sim enterprise that relies on modeling systems that are still classified runs into problems. But again, for sure, this may not be the particular problem that is delaying Heatblur right now, but it’s for sure is not unreasonable to ask, and see what kind of answer we get.

 

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Finally had the time!
I re-watched and analyzed to the best of my abilities and my "failing" vision, (getting old).
I've counted cutscenes/every time the camera shifts position.

EF2000, appears 17 times.
MiG-29, 12. Including multiple cockpit shots.
F-4E, 12.
F-16C, 11.
C-130, 9. Including shots from the cargo bay.
F/A-18C, 6.

(I'm positive I saw the F-4E shoot down a MiG-23).

Also consider the EF2000 was the major "background" in the 2025 and Beyond promo art.
So, yeah! I'd say it's safe to say the development is far from having been stalled.

Cheers
 

 

You are a funny guy Max! Yes, The 17 appearances of the Eurofighter compared to a measly 12 each for the Fulcrum's & the F-4's in that video tells us all we want to know, because herein lies the irrefutable proof that the Eurofighter is as you say "the main star" in the 2025 lineup and therefore all must be well! 

But seriously, while as we know correlation is not causation, it's nonetheless food for thought that it's the in-service aircraft with systems that are still classified that is so delayed.

And I'm sure Heatblur keeps an eye in the forum and will eventually see this thread. And it will be interesting to see if they respond because I really do think the question in the OP deserves an answer.

 

Edited January 22 by Pilum

[MAXsenna]

10 minutes ago, Pilum said:

You are a funny guy Max!

I try, I try! Thanks!  

A lot of what you say is probably the truth, and makes sense. I'm curious now to how ED and 3rd parties handles this with their SMEs. And quite a few pilots, whether fixed wing or rotary are very vocal here and there. 

13 minutes ago, Pilum said:

And I'm sure Heatblur keeps an eye in the forum and will eventually see this thread. And it will be interesting to see if they respond because I really do think the question in the OP deserves an answer.

Yeah, that would be interesting.  

Cheers! 

[Czar66]

3 hours ago, Pilum said:

And this is exactly my point: The F-4 is a 3rd gen aircraft with much lower complexity and no classified parts making it much easier to implement than an in-service 4.5 gen aircraft, hence the big interest in how the development of the latter is progressing.

I see. Understood. That's more on the marketing side than anything else.
It doesn't mean work is not being done daily.

Anyways, we're all excited to see new things.
Happy flying

[Spectre11]

13 hours ago, Pilum said:

 

Much of what you say about the reasons for the delay may well be true. However, I think it would be fair to say that we are all just speculating. And in this context I would like to add something:

I think many in this forum are a bit optimistic as to what former pilots (and engineer’s like myself for that matter) could bring to the table for DCS module development when it comes to classified systems we have worked with. And this is because after a while, your knowledge base whatever your profession, be it engineer or pilot, will be a mix of open and classified knowledge which you use (or used to use ) daily in your job. And it’s therefore very difficult when you are confronted with a question in the area of your expertise, to know weather you can answer it or not without divulging things you shouldn’t.

I already mentioned in another thread that I worked with EW previously, and for sure, I could refer to open sources to answer many questions in this forum related to EW if I wanted to. And believe me it’s tempting to do so sometimes when you know something. But the conundrum here is that even if you are referring to open sources, you may be guiding other parties in a way based on your classified knowledge. This may be a bit difficult to grasp unless you worked with classified data before, but the only way to be sure (at least if you worked for a number of years) is to not touch stuff at all that you signed an NDA for. And for me that is EW. But I dabble in another area which is classified: Missile kinematics. But I can do that since I never worked in that area professionally, and all my knowledge is therefore 100% based on open sources. So missile kinematics yes, but EW is a big no-no for me. So again, those GAF Eurofighter pilots probably won’t be able to help much with the modeling of classified systems in DCS. It’s as simple as that.

I don’t think sigs show up anymore, but mine is an Old Crow motto from the world of EW: “Those who talk don’t know, and those who know don’t talk”.

And this is of course not only applicable EW engineers, but very much to military pilots as well.

So this is why I would not be surprised at all if a flight sim enterprise that relies on modeling systems that are still classified runs into problems. But again, for sure, this may not be the particular problem that is delaying Heatblur right now, but it’s for sure is not unreasonable to ask, and see what kind of answer we get.

Allow me to explain my position a little bit more clearly here.

You are ofcourse right that you cannot simply inject your knowledge about classified stuff into a public consumer product, but you can help and guide the developers and as is the case with True Grit reach out to the authorities (manufacturer and operators) and discuss and negotiate what can be presented in the public consumer product like an DCS aircraft module.

If you have a clue about the subject matter it's also somewhat easier to make sense of material that you can find out there in the public domain.

We are not talking about magic here at all. The general principles of how a hydraulic system, fuel system, radar etc. works is physics and you can obtain that knowledge from public sources.

There are certainly aspects that you'll don't find, but just because there are some details missing doesn't mean you can't create a decent simulation of something. It's an unrealistic expectation to have a 100% accurate representation of such an aircraft and its systems in a public consumer flight simulator, produced for entertainment purposes anyway.

The stance of "if it's not 100% right it must not be done at all" is something that I don't agree with and as outlined above it's simply an unrealistic expectation anyway.

The eternal naysaying, doubting etc. isn't going to help the developers and is in my humble opinion discouraging and counter productive. If these doubts furthermore come from people who haven't performed hundreds or even thousands of hours in research, who don't even grasp how such technologies work in the first place and who couldn't even tell whether something is realistically implemented or not, I have little understanding for these eternal, ever repetitive complaints and doubts. Ofcourse you are free to doubt and question everything, but as said it's not going to help. 

I can perfectly live with with some omissions, if the end product is overall realistic and not a pure fantasy product. There is much more known about this aircraft than you and many others here think and the aircraft isn't that new either. We have seen aircraft being decently simulated before which have not been in service for that long as the Eurofighter is now. What you'll certainly not see is the latest and greatest build standard of the aircraft, even if some advanced features might be included. Same has been true for other aircraft that are also still in service as well, but that's surprisingly overlooked and ignored over and over again.