Last but not least :)
2 Likes
Yeah i noticed but truth is when i fired my munitions i usually dont look them again, so as long as i can see them upscaled on my plane its fine for me :)
I used the first one for the Eurofighter screens, some custom textures still look nice even after the afterburner revamp
Exactly, the guy who makes those afterburner skins is very careful with custom skins so usually it doesnt cause any problems.
Honestly im greatful for those who make those custom skins, thanks to them my user skin folder became 50GB :)
1 Like
Indeed, only thing that changed is the fact that they can no longer change the lenght or color of the flame
1 Like
Yea, I wrote shortly after the patch went live to Smin about this issue, he respondet with known issue
Any updates on the radar…?
Not yet, we’re still waiting on the planned changes being pushed to production.
7 Likes
Will we see many changes/fixes coming in the next patch or just one or two at a time? We’ve seen quite a few changes/fixes for the Rafale but barely anything for the Typhoon since it was added.
Can you roughly say from currently what is planned to come?
(Lost the track)
yeah at this point the next changes propably only come with the next major
why they dont like directly putting them into live i will never understand
Not something I can share when I do know but in this case I also don’t know haha. Waiting like the rest of you.
3 Likes
Lul, was an try worth
Hopefully they will deliver the change for the outer pylon which is already Fixed on the UK and ITA one, just the DE needs the fix now…
1 Like
Why not all?
As far as I remember Smin said that these changes are planned to be part of this update. By “this” update he meant 2.43 or 2.45?
No it was designed from the very beginning as a multi-role aircraft. As I originally posted the British requirement called for good ground attack capability. The initial joint European requirement that started the project also called for ground attack capability:
Spoiler
And then the contractually binding development requirements specified a list of air to surface weapons that must be carried:
Spoiler
RAF documents from the early 90s also show planned multi-role loadouts:
Spoiler
I can dig up more documents throughout the entire timeline of the Eurofighter programme mentioning air-to-ground capability, it has always been a part of the programme, not some sort of after thought.
If you can’t work out that there is a difference between the aircraft not having a gun, and the aircraft having a fully functional gun which the RAF chose not to buy any ammo for as a policy decision then I really don’t know what to say.
Just like the Rafale the earliest Eurofighters didn’t have ground attack capability in order to get them into service quicker. Block 1 Eurofighters were all two seat pilot training aircraft so didn’t need air-to-ground capability, and Block 2 Eurofighters were delivered in order to get basic air-defence capability as quickly as possible. Block 5 aircraft (there was no Block 3 or 4) were then introduced with ground attack capability.
9 Likes
Program started in 1983 and suppose to be Air Superiority fighter, only after 1989 requirements for multirole capabilities came to light.
Same Chally 2 incident.
Yeah it took only 10 years for them to realize they can use it as for multirole fighter which brings us to start.
The gun wasnt operational for 2 years as Gunjob said which means first operational Typhoons didnt had any CQC or CAS capabilities with that gun which basically having no gun at that rate.
Now sure RAF pilots statements caused a ‘‘not having gun’’ myth but either way its practically same, like it or not.
Gee i wonder why it took so long to implement Ground attack capabilities to EFT family…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The first image in that post is from 1983 (as I said it is from the document that formally started the project). Also, for someone who was demanding sources earlier today, I’m noticing a distinct lack of them in your comments…
If you are just going to refuse to accept everything I provide sources for, then at least provide some evidence to back your view up. Otherwise there really isn’t much point in continuing this conversation.
No idea what you’re referring to.
12 Likes
First image is from UK Mod that is one of their requirements for EFT project, doesnt mean it was designed to be multirole from the beginning, also lacking exact date on that information doesnt prove that its coming from 1983.
Yeah you’re posting documents that has no exact date but refers to requirements for EFT’s capabilities.
As someone who interested in British vehicles its funny to see that you have no idea about this.
Let me explain, when Challenger 2 development began UK Mod required significant improvements over Chally1 and set a bar for designers, but in the end it barely met and couldnt exceed their expectations hence why current Challenger 2’s hull armor is actually overperforming in this game.
Which way is the Challenger 2 hull overperforming in game?
I’m sure you have actual unrestricted documents you can share?
Or is the usual “trust me bro”