Q: Gameplay is CRITICAL to longevity, but this sounds a bit scary. I hope this doesn't mean any compromise with regard to weapon and flight modeling, and realism in systems and detection modeling? EF2000, after all, still involved some very sophisticated systems modeling. Can you tell us more about the level of control we can expect in the cockpit?

A: The flight modelling is the best that we have ever had. As I already said in my previous answers, we benefited greatly by spending several (privileged) hours in the real Eurofighter simulation at BAe in Warton. I will say that the real aircraft is a doddle to fly - it's been designed that way. You can throw it about and give it indecent stick inputs and it won't depart dangerously, although you could get yourself in trouble by violent low-speed maneuvering near the ground or by exceeding pilot G limits.

Tight turning with weapons will see you bleed off a lot of speed, but the engines are poweful and should keep you out of trouble. Energy management is still important however. If the Test Pilot at Warton likes it, what more can I say? The missile modelling is based on TAW and our previous sims, so no surprises there.

Chris Worning, test pilot at Warton, comments on the EF2000:

"The most modern fighter that I had flown previously is the F-16 and I tend to compare Eurofighter with a much superior engine performance and compared to the F-16 Block 50, the Eurofighter maximum take-off weight is typically only 20% higher but we have 40% more thrust.

Even more significant is the fact that the high thrust of the PW229 is reached by an almost 100% augmentation in reheat so when we compare dry power, Eurofighter has 75% more thrust. This leads to a much lower fuel consumption in combat situations and is one of the factors that allow us to 'supercruise' (flying supersonically without reheat) which we have now demonstrated on many test flights.

Supersonic performance is also assisted by the canard delta-wing design of the aircraft and the variable air intakes. Operational performance is further enhanced by four under-fuselage AMRAAM stations in addition to the underwing hardpoints, very advanced auto-pilot and auto-throttles and of course, the carefree handling which prevents stressing the aircraft or departing from controlled flight.

Carefree handling operates regardless of configuration or fuel load. As far as pilot ergonomics are concerned, the Eurofighter cockpit is much larger and more comfortable than any combat aircraft I have previously flown.

Tactical information is presented on three of the best multifunction displays I have ever seen. Compared to the F-16, this provides around 2.5 times more display area.

The high degree of automation greatly reduces pilot workload compared to earlier designs and the ‘house-keeping’ tasks of the pilot - monitoring systems, such as electrics and hydraulics - has almost been eliminated in normal conditions.

To further reduce pilot workload, Eurofighter is equipped with electronic checklists as well as electronically presented instrument procedures making the cockpit a paperless one. I could go on for hours. It's a great aircraft!"

Click to continue

A: In Typhoon the radar now sorts tracks into known, unknown and unidentified. RCS is modelled in detail, so how an enemy radar picks you up depends on your aspect, loadout, speed and altitude. The same is true for the enemy. There will be no AWACS or JSTARS support - in our major war against a hi-tech enemy, there aren't enough of these aircraft to go around. The emphasis is therefore on trying to figure out what's going on for yourself, what your wingman sees, or what forces on the ground can tell you. In some cases old-fashioned eye-balling might be needed.

Terrain masking is fully modelled and will play a major part in getting to targets undetected. The IRST now performs a much more useful function in providing visual information at closer ranges, and will help with the task of making the correct id. The DASS is modelled as per EF2000, and there's an imaging system for guided weapons.

TERPROM is modelled as per the real aircraft with improved collision detection warnings, and there's off-boresight targetting for ASRAAM. AMRAAM has been replaced by Meteor (sorry guys, but we're buying British) which was called the S-225 in EF2000; it performs a similar function as AMRAAM.

Sea Eagle has been replaced by Penguin while Maverick has been replaced by Brimstone, which is essentially a Hellfire derivative. Both these weapons systems are smaller than their predecessors and therefore you can carry more. Typhoon now has multi-weapon racks too, so load-outs are fearsome for the AG role.

Q: 3Dream graphics engine; what will make the sim surpass other games graphically?

A: Measures of graphics are becoming increasingly subjective as it becomes an easier aspect of the game to do well, thanks to improved hardware and software. Many sim developers are preferring to use purely photo-based texture reference, which looks stunning at certain altitudes. Others, like JSF have put emphasis on low level terrain.

Typhoon will demand a lot of skilful low-level flying around intricate terrain saturated with threats (flat is not a concept that features in Typhoon's world). Our graphical efforts have gone into making this experience as gratifying as possible. We do use photo maps, but only where appropriate. Unlike previous DID sims, the terrain does not comprise repeated tiles, but is unique in its entirety, just like the real world. A lot of emphasis has also gone into the visual effects to give players stunning feedback on their destructive prowess.

Graphics should not be assessed separately from the gaming experience… screen shots alone often create a false impression. The aim of the artist is to enhance the experience for the player. If the graphics do this, then they are good. If we succeed in doing this better than our competitors, then we will surpass them.

Go to Part III.