Nahen

But do you know what R-60 and R-27 are??

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, please let me through! Please let me through!! I'm changing the queue! Excuse me!! F-15E !!!!! Where's my money!!!!

I don't think the MiG-29 or Su-27 have ever actually attacked ground targets with the R-60, R-27 etc...

He is capable, he can do it, I will say more, he did it as part of testing and training. In Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, F-16s and F-15s often flew at a low altitude, scaring the enemy with their presence, it didn't matter if they fired from a cannon, whether they only raised sand and dust into the air or crossed the sound barrier. We still play with Digital Combat Simulator - that is, we recreate/simulate real battlefields/combat. In the real world, in real conflicts, the F-15C did not attack ground targets. (I exclude the Israeli variants, but as far as I know he adapted and used the D versions for attacks on ground targets) Tell You, I sometimes fly in DCS to attack and effectively destroy BTRY, BRDM, trucks using Sidewinders and AMRAAMs. So what? The F-15C is a normal multi-role fighter?

It seems so, but I don't think there has been a "teaser" like today Another question - "pre-order" OK but when will I be able to download it, install it and put my ass in it?

Hmm, why don't we add to Spitfires, Me-109s, FW-190s - AMRAAMs and Sidewinders? They could and did carry rockets, right? And History.. what can you say, We simulate planes... And besides, Digital Combat Simulation is what DCS stands for? So it doesn't simulate planes, it's a DIGITAL COMBAT/BATTLEFIELD SIMULATION?? Right or not? So if so, the simulation is usually a "pretend" of something real - in this case it is a simulation of real combat/battlefield, isnt? So show me when, for example, the F-15C was used in combat and on the battlefield to REALLY attack targets on the ground and not to "show force" because that's not the same thing.

You're not wrong You're just not quite right Laser and infrared are types of electromagnetic radiation - a laser is actually a focused beam of "light" but light can also be treated this way. And if we accept such an assumption - then you are right, everything that is in the "invisible" band falls into the same range - only that this range of wavelengths and frequencies is quite extensive And on the one hand, there is such a "safe IR" which you won't get burned, and on the other hand, such UV ranges as Alicatt wrote about - that can burn the TV along with half of the house

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Painting the helmet is not be "regulate" and basically the emblem of the Corps on the helmet rather does not indicate belonging to the formation. Might as well be Mickey Mouse... As far as I know, uniforms as such - a jumpsuit, a vest are elements of the regulations. The helmet itself also, but what you have painted on it, the regulations do not specify in terms of the type of graphics. So maybe it's a USAF pilot who always wanted to fly in the corps?

The IR wavelength in the remote controls is the so-called "near infrared" average wavelength in the LEDs in the IR remote controls is about 900 nm. "Laser" in the invisible band, e.g. ultraviolet from 10 to 400 nm, so the differences can be quite large ... Of course you can force whatever you want use...

I completely agree that without having a most enhanced HOTAS it is impossible to solve some settings. You have to use what is there But on Thrustmaster Warthog you can easily map "the original" HOTAS from the F-15C with minor exceptions. No need to apologize or anything, I 100% agree with you

In no way will I argue with people like you - flying on a joystick and keyboard, etc. This is a completely different matter and I understand that in such situations there is no other way. The author of this thread wrote that he uses the Warthog kit. So in 98% it is able to set it up like in a real F-15C fighter. Literally a few positions have to be "recombined" - including changing the elevation of the radar antenna - the Warthog does not have a knob on the throttle. That's why I wrote that I'm surprised people who use complex sets such as Warthog, WinWing, WirPil and similar, that they don't set everything as close as possible to real HOTAS. If someone doesn't have such opportunities - I understand and in this case it's not a problem at all, You have to deal with it differently.

Perform any mission in F-14 without RIO, Perform any mission in AH-64 without gunner, Perform any mission in Mi-24 without gunner... Now perform any mission in F-15E without WSO... So, with the exception of the F-15E, each of these machines is 30% usable and the F-15E about 80%. Is there a difference and possible sense of releasing the module without WSO?

Do you know what "show force" is in fighting ground forces? It has nothing to do with shooting at anything on the ground. It's about demonstrating presence and strength. What this video shows is nothing more than an "attack" on a ground target using a "sonic boom" that has the same effectiveness. Did you know that the cannon in the F-15C has a completely different angle of "wedge" than in the F-15E? Do you know why? No one has ever used the F-15C in combat to attack ground targets. Equally well, you can fly in AWACS E3 and shoot ISIS positions through the open door with M4 rifle

Anyway, if someone uses the Warthog set from Trustmaster or other at least or more "extended" sets in terms of switches, buttons, axes, etc., I don't understand why they don't try to set HOTAS as it is in real plane? Firstly, in my opinion, it is an element of simulation, and secondly, someone thought it through so that it would work in reality, so it must work in the case of a simulation game. And I completely do not understand how someone starts and comes to someone "for their settings" ... It has never happened to me that someone's "original" settings on HOTAS suit me. I prefer to start with "real" ones and possibly modify them for myself. I've seen buttons, switches and axes so strangely "signed" that it would never have crossed my mind. I understand that it may be convenient for someone, for example, to have an inverted "pitch", rudder or a trigger somewhere on the throttle... but these are quite individual cases in my opinion ... maybe even calling for some specialized research

Unless there is a double bind with something else or the same with the axes in the settings.

Don't check anything. 100 throttle without afterburner is 96% on the RPM cockpit gauges. Moving the throttle further to the afterburner position does not change this parameter anymore - it is always "96% only". When you move the throttle further and activate the afterburner then the only indicator of afterburner work on the gauges is "NOZ POS" under the gauges - FUEL FLOW - they show the nozzle opening percentage and you will have 100% there. I don't know if that's actually the case. That's how it is in DCS.

There is no way to code the "visibility" of a laser. A laser is either visible in the infrared or not, depending on the wavelength at which it operates. A coded laser beam is coded information in the beam. still everyone can see it - if it is supposed to be visible in IR - but the information sent in the beam has its own code that the receiver in the missile or other device identifies. It has absolutely nothing to do with visibility or not the beam. The same coded beam may be visible to the naked eye, infrared, or not visible at all.

Rather not true, because TV sets use infrared transmitters and receivers, not lasers... Why not lasers? Because you wouldn't be able to hit the receiver with the remote...

But it will be full of fun to put it in the cockpit And what if somebody get do you get someone with a fear of heights?

I don't understand the discussion on the F-15E about whether it's Navy/Marines or AirForce wings... No one except AF has ever used any version of the F-15 in the USA. The screenshot from the DCS with the model of pilot is in the most appropriate colors. The difference in shades may at most result from the settings of the monitor / graphic card. Pilots of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the like flew the F-15 at most as guests and perhaps as test pilots at a time when "naval" versions of the machine were considered. But I don't think it goes that far.

So WSO can have a USMC uniform and a pilot can't? This photo was supposed to show that the screenshot before is not a USMC pilot at all.

It so happens that the default settings on this particular switch/hat do not correspond to the antenna movement settings. By default - as far as I remember - the antenna movement is on axes. That is, assigning the antenna movement to the trim-switch and at the same time not eliminating the setting on the axes can cause problems - duplicated setting. So assigning the settings in a way that is close to real avoids this problem - right? On the trim-switch, there is the trimming of the plane - as in reality and as the switch is physically described on the joystick - and not the antenna movement, so there is no problem with a double bind - is this still logic that blows your brain? If so, well... I can only sympathize... Besides, you wrote everything that has already been written in at least three posts above. So what new did you want to add?

If you want, I can send you "drawings" with functions on a real HOTAS in F-15A/C. You can do most of it the same way on the Warthog plus a few modifications. It works very good in my opinion.