DCS is more of a cockpit sim, War Thunder is trying to replicate a far larger group of vehicles without modeling every single system…
Would be cool to see the Eurofighter in both
5 Likes
Nobody is denying that. But saying WT has more fidelity on take off, landing and taxing is simply wrong.
It is completely understandable that WT has some less fidelity in certain aspects just because of like you said the sheer amount of vehicles which all have their unique flight model and characteristics which no other game can deliver
1 Like
I am not sure to be honest.
War Thunder might actually have more fidelity to it, but we can’t really see or feel it because of how the runways are designed or how the game is currently playing.
They model air temperature and density in detail to such an extend that you can see a difference in projectile speed on ground vehicles depending on the weather.
I am almost sure this also translates to the rounds of aircraft guns.
There are so many small and fine details that the normal player doesn’t even see that I often question myself why they even bothered to make it this detailed in the first place. Then I ask myself if there are things that I haven’t taken notice of in this game yet.
1 Like
This is false, even F-15C from Flaming Cliffs has modeled tire blowing when coming in too fast at the ground, or making gear stuck out when landing harshly, you then cannot gear up when in flight, etc…
@warhead_beast
Yes, all aircraft in War Thunder have trimming, glad you’re accepting the facts I stated. What’s your point?
I taxied in War Thunder yesterday.
what facts? the fact that there is no suspension modelled in DCS? FALSE, the fact that there is no Tire blowing? FALSE, the fact that taxing has more fidelity in WT than in DCS? FALSE.
My point is that you are again making wrong statements and selling them as facts.
Oh yes you can taxi in war thunder but its not required in any form in the gameplay loop, in DCS it is. You even have ground crew that you have to interact with for start up procedure.
Yes WT has trim but on a very crude level and again its not required for the gamplay loop because every aircraft in wt also has autotrim to make it easier.
And yes i will end the discussion here
1 Like
yet another eurofighter with pirate
It’s the same one you posted, 98-07
There are precisely three Eurofighters in German hands fitted with PIRATE.
98+03 a/k/a IPA3 which is a twin-seat Tranche 1 development aircraft operated by WTD61
98+07 a/k/a IPA7 which is a single-seat Tranche 2 development aircraft operated by Airbus,
98+08 a/k/a IPA8 which is another twin-seat development aircraft, but this time a Tranche 3A.
98+08 was going to be 31+23 in the German air force, but ended up being retained by Airbus, modified with PIRATE and test instruments, and operated as an IPA under its current registration.
“98+08” was temporarily assigned as a registration on a single-seat airframe built for Austria that was taken in to German service as the first operational Tranche 2, and reassigned with the registration 31+14. This one never had PIRATE.
3 Likes
german eurofighter also with irst dont know which one
As @da12thmonkey said, only the IPA airframes have PIRATE. No in service German EFTs have PIRATE. Any photos you do find are 99% one of the IPA development airframes.
3 Likes
I see it as a yak 141 situation xD give german typhoons their PIRATE
4 Likes
They better, it’s a political choice not a limitation so I see no qualms with giving PIRATE to the Luftwaffe EF-2000s, especially given that it would make the modelling process easier
I mean, both sides are kind of debatable imo. To my understanding Germany “has” PIRATE and reserves the right to fit them if wanted/needed at anytime (likely suggesting they’ve “paid” for some, but dont have them on hand atm but could immediately get their hands on some brand new ones in the case of a conflict?) but at the same time, they dont actively operate them atm. Adding the german ones in-game with PIRATE would technically be easier for gaijin, and wouldnt be exactly unprecedented, with many vehicles in-game having things they never operationally used, but “could” fit, for the sake of “balance”.
At the end of the day though, IRST is kinda is rarely ever worth using as a targeting sensor in WT (theres some argument to be made in GFRB and sim to track targets with no RWR warning, but in the fox 3 meta thats dubious at best imo). PIRATE could, from my understanding, allow for extreme range missile detection (acting as a super long range IR MAWS for example), and is likely able to give some degree of NCTR capability (due to it being IIR and iirc being known to “classify” contacts) as well as being able to launch fox 3’s with no warning at all, but its unclear if any of those points will actually be modelled, and at the end of the day, im not sure if any of the 3 are explicitly noted to be capabilities, which leaves the door wide open for that classic gaijin “hurr-durr stupid westoid engineers could never surpass the glory and technological knowhow of glorious russian/soviet designers!” and model PIRATE to be the exact same, or atleast very similar to the current russian IRST’s seen in-game
I think ive seen some docs here that state it could lock and guide Fox 3
Its going to be no better than the AN/AXX-1 TCS as found on the F-14B, or DMT on the AV-8B / Harrier GR.7.
and be the cause of a bunch of bugs and be practically nonfunctional.
Docs and primary sources mean nothing to gaijn, they model what they want when they want and screw every bug reporter for trying to improve the games accuracy, its not hard to see, particularly following some recent info provided by an ex-gaijin employee.
TCS has extremely detailed bug reports down to its exact scan patterns, which missiles can and cant be fired using it, etc… and its modelled incorrectly to this day and there are very clearly no attempts being made at fixing any of it…
2 Likes
Shameless plug on my part, i’ve saved sources for all of these things ready for a bug-report on implementation. There’s no excuse for them not to model these features.
But yes functions as UV MAWS, yes categorises things, yes differentiates between clutter and non-clutter, yes can be used as a long-range IR camera, yes has strong sources suggesting 150-165km range (iirc in-game ones other than F-14 with TCS are about 50km).
May be better than some radars found currently at top tier.
2 Likes
It can guide fox-3’s via datalink. It has TWS features etc.
1 Like
@BalticSAS I mean the Yak-141 was supposedly intended to mount the IRST. German Eurofighter’s weren’t intended to have them they pulled out of IRST development as it started. I don’t see this as being anything like the Yak-141, particularly as that is modelled as a projected in-service aircraft and German Eurofighter’s in active service (not development) do not and have not carried PIRATE.
It is a political choice and numerous ones are reflected in-game in features such as armament. Gaijin models national differences between in-service aircraft which included both upsides and downsides.
By introducing PIRATE to German Eurofighter’s on the basis of ‘it can be done, it just isn’t’ you could say the same for introducing the LWS system onto German and Italian aircraft, or AMK onto British and Italian ones, or ASRAAM on German and Italian ones and IRIS-T on the British one.
I don’t have anything against that a prime Eurofighter with all the features in each Eurofighter tree would be great (but I doubt will ever happen), but I’d advise thinking carefully before advocating for that, it may bring others up to parity in alternate areas (aside from Germany also not using AMK in active service and Airbus developing it and testing it on their aircraft).
If you advocate for Germany to get PIRATE you also advocate for UK and Italy to get AMK.