Eurofighter Typhoon preview

[Dino Cattaneo]

Here are some preview pictures of my Eurofighter Typhoon project - this is a payware effort for P3D/FSX - which will also support Tacpack.
The external model is almost complete - while the VC is 40% done... hopefully a Beta will be ready for summer...

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35381&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35382&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=35383&stc=1

[Daube]

This is certainly interesting.
I have probably said in the past that I have the "other" Eurofighter already. I bought it because the external model looked so nice... unfortunately, it's a FPS hog, and the flight model is a total joke.
So I'm really looking forward to your product.
A small feature request: load manager that works even if TacPack is not available...

[menef]

For SURE this will be the best Thypoon digital replica :applause:

[Chris Sykes]

Looking good! Any possibility of the Twin seaters?

[Dino Cattaneo]

Thanks for your support!

It will take months before it is complete... but it is looking good already - and I'll try my best to make it right.

It will feature only the single-seater - rationale is to keep the project scope "manageable" and...make it right.

As for the loadout manager, it can be made independent from Tacpack... but that requires external code I usually prefer not to include - thing is I usually prefer my projects as "vanilla" as possible in terms of external code. We'll see.

[Daube]

Thanks for the reply, Dino.

[ST0RM]

Amazing Dino. You do such quality work in a short time, what takes larger names, far longer times. And their products are crap. Looking forward to the Tiffy.

-Jeff

[Ripcord]

Sweet! This is great news Dino.

I hope that you will get the paint kit into the hands of some of the more reputable and talented painters in our community as soon as you can. I'm looking forward to this one, for sure.

[Dino Cattaneo]

I am indeed developing the textures as layered PDF - this should result in a decent "paintkit".
Still, I am not releasing it anytime soon - at least the model is not frozen.

Aside, I have posted this in the P3D forum as the pictures are taken in P3Dv3... but the intent is to have a package that will work also in FSX with minimal differences.

[Chris Sykes]

Dino thanks for clarifying the Twins. Really will be looking forward to this one! Will the weapons options also include the choice to remove pylons?

[Dino Cattaneo]

...obviously I meant "layered PSD"

Aside, I'll try to have some EU-specific weapons included in Tacpack (e.g. IRIS-T and ASRAAM missiles) but at the moment I cannot confirm I'll have the time.


@Chris Yes, pylons will be removeable.

[DaveWG]

Looks very good so far Dino. Definite purchase for me.:encouragement:

[Stickshaker]

Same for me!

[Dino Cattaneo]

...small update on cockpit modeling...about 60-70% done.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=36266&stc=1

[Daube]

Superb, as usual :applause:

Which solution do you plan to use for the rear-view mirrors ?
1- the native P3D mirrors
2- just some reflective textures (normal envmap) which will reflect the scenery only if dynamic reflections are ON ?

I'm not sure, but I believe point2 is less beautiful, but also less heavy on the FPS... have you ever compared ?

[Dino Cattaneo]

I am still undecided on the mirrors - as it will be a divegence point between FSX and P3D cockpits, it will be one of the last features to be added.
Indeed the native "mirror" is much heavier on the frame rates... and then new environment reflections may open new possibilities... we'll see.

[Daube]

I am still undecided on the mirrors - as it will be a divegence point between FSX and P3D cockpits, it will be one of the last features to be added.
Indeed the native "mirror" is much heavier on the frame rates... and then new environment reflections may open new possibilities... we'll see.

Well, I imagine you will have to go through several versions with this Typhoon.
From a software developper point of view (I am one), I believe the environment reflection would be the best solution for version 1.0, since it would reduce your developpment effort.
FSX users would then see the normal envmap reflected on the mirrors, and P3D users would see either the normal envmap, or the scenery, depending on their dynamic reflections options.

Also, just thinking: right now we can see the pilot/aircraft body in the mirrors. Is it possible to make the pilot/aircraft part non-reflective, and the rest reflective (via Alpha channel) ?
Then the pilot would remain always visible, while the rest of the mirror would show the scenery/sky...

[Dino Cattaneo]

...it is possible, and I actually tried it in a test version of the T-45C. However, contrast between the rendered part (dynamic) and the pilot figure looked a little odd... hence I preferred a static bitmap (with option for dynamic mirror) for that one.
We'll see - I need to finish the geometry first.

[Stickshaker]

Very nice indeed, Dino - looks like the simulator I flew a few times. One small point: should the windshield frame not 'bulge' outwards a bit near the point where it connects with the fuselage? Or is it the perspective of the screenshot?

[Dino Cattaneo]

Well... part is perspective, but the geometry is not final (e.g. the canopy sealings are missing) - also... it is not meant to be seen in this POV :-) - I took the picture from this angle so that more of the controls is shown... still long way to go.

[Stickshaker]

Ah, I understand. The picture shows clearly what a magnificent field of view the pilot has!

[sleightflight]

Looking forward to seeing this, I have two different manufacturers versions and I'm not entirely happy with either of them. As soon as it's released in will be getting it. Keep up the excellent work Dino.

[Dino Cattaneo]

First signs of life...

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=36701&stc=1

[IanHenry]

Looking good Dino:jump:

Ian

[spatialpro]

Looks amazing Dino! It'll certainly be an immediate purchase for me! Perhaps about the time this is released I might realistically get my hands on an Oculus Rift too... what a combination!

Really hope some non-US weapons can be included!

[scotth6]

Noice! It's looking spectacular.

Cheers,

[Dino Cattaneo]

Thanks for the appreciation

@Airtrooper - as for non-US weapons, I am trying to convince VRS to include at least the IRIS-T and the ASRAAM as A-A missiles - but no luck as of today. In the worst case, there will be non-functional, cosmetic only weapons - at the moment, IRIS-T, ASRAAM, Storm Shadow and Meteor are being modeled. Tacpack supported GBU-10, GBU-12, AIM-9L and AIM-120 are already implemented

[eagleye100]

This is definitely one of the best model nice work and good luck :)

[spatialpro]

@Airtrooper - as for non-US weapons, I am trying to convince VRS to include at least the IRIS-T and the ASRAAM as A-A missiles - but no luck as of today

Reading between the lines I think prior experience modelling weapons upon request for different aircraft may have somewhat put them off the idea. I hope my impressions are incorrect though.

[Dino Cattaneo]

@Airtrooper - well, no... I think the main problem is the accuracy of the data. They are very keen to have the maximum realism for what concerns the weapons performance... and publicly available, reliable data for the IRIS-T and the ASRAAM are scarce (let alone other weapons like the Meteor, the Storm Shadow or the Brimstone). If you rely on advertising material -then you may end with overly-optimistic performance and break the game.

[spatialpro]

@Airtrooper - well, no... I think the main problem is the accuracy of the data. They are very keen to have the maximum realism for what concerns the weapons performance... and publicly available, reliable data for the IRIS-T and the ASRAAM are scarce (let alone other weapons like the Meteor, the Storm Shadow or the Brimstone). If you rely on advertising material -then you may end with overly-optimistic performance and break the game.

Agreed, but I think the user's understanding of a weapon's performance (based on overly-optimistic available material) hasn't always matched that of the reliable material used by VRS in TacPack (correctly IMO). Some users don't understand the difference and provide less-than-positive feedback, which is a real shame. I think it is this that may have blunted VRS's enthusiasm. I think VRS and yourself are going about things the best way though. :encouragement: