Nahen

You right. My mistake, looooong ago this has changed.

Mby...

These are not cheap things... Might not be enough... But don't worry you still have 3 or 5 years before you need money for this module

We are a being, a self, there are millions of us... A form that is used when conducting classes with a group of people. Something is being explained that is supposed to translate into the actions of these people. If you say "You have to do something", in a moment another person will ask you the same question because after all, "you told this particular person what to do, not the one standing next to them" Don't confuse it with "general" - let everyone do what they want, "We" - "set" - was addressed to those who have a similar problem/question. As Razo+r wrote - due to the inability to enter any pressure value in the F-15C module, in 90% of cases it does not matter what you do with the altimeter, whether you set the altitude to zero or to the airport altitude. You have a "true" radar altitude on the HUD and most of the time you use it anyway. The problem arises when approaching the landing on the instruments. But it is also a matter of whether you are aware whether the altimeter has been reset or the airport altitude has been entered. I always zero before starting - just for fun.

Seriously? Well, explain to me if in the F-15C module it is not possible to enter the value of atmospheric pressure, and at most the height in specific pressure conditions in a specific place, how do you want to use the ability to set the altitude on this instrument differently? And in fact, when you have such opportunities, how do you want to use them differently if you take off, for example, at an airport by the sea and its height above sea level is 50 meters and you land 1000 km further at an airport that is 1500 meters above sea level? The two locations have different atmospheric pressures, how do you enter the flight altitude of the destination airport at the pressure difference between the take-off and landing locations? And what if you plan to land at airport X and during the flight it turns out that you are flying somewhere else, to a different runway height and completely different weather conditions? If you cannot enter the pressure value and thus achieve the actual height of the "belt" in the given conditions (pressure) then what does it matter what you set on the altimeter? NONE. Therefore, in the F-15C module, there is no point in making any other moves than zeroing the altimeter at take-off. Fly from Anapa to Vaziani with dynamic weather and variable pressure. Let's see what you're set up to...

Firstly, we do not set altimeter on the airport altitude. The altimeter must be set to "zero" before take-off. This is to facilitate the assessment of altitude, especially when landing. If the altimeter has the option of entering the pressure value, it can be entered in flight, if we want to land at a different airport - then in flight we enter the pressure value appropriate for a given airport. In the case of returning to the airport from which we took off, zeroing altimetr before take off is enough. In the F-15C FC3 module, the altimeter should be zeroed before take-off and not moved again

This and previous video Polychop publicated looong loong ago in a galaxy far away...

For at least five years during the holiday season I read how the F-15E will come out by the end of the year... And on the discord Razbam clearly denied the fact that the module was released this year.

You right! But you take little mistake - no 2022 but 2023

:D

I'm all for it - but it still won't change the fact that the standard USAF F-15E painting is the most boring painting of these planes.

I'm not convinced... I remember, among other things, while asking the pilots of the 493 Squadron the 48th Fighter Wing from Lakenheath, when around 1993-95, they regularly flew to Poland to the base of the 28rd Fighter Regiment flying on the MiG-23. And then these few pilots said they "heard it could be done" but they never did it and they didn't train for it...

Ehhh again like with CFT... the F-15A/C was never used to attack ground targets. The fact that there were assumptions and some trials / tests does not matter. The result of these trials was the F-15E. Apart from the Israeli versions of the F-15, no F-15A/C has ever been used for attacking ground targets and was not intended to be used like that - that's why the USAF had F-16s, A-10s, B-52s. The F-15A/C has ALWAYS been an air superiority fighter and was used as such in the USAF. Perhaps for a while some pilots were trained in this direction, and perhaps they were the first F-15E pilots. But that's exactly as important as the fact that someone drove a Ford Mustang into the mud and since then claims the Mustang is an off-road vehicle...

The problem is that in some situations you have to "replace" one AI mashine with another because it will not be possible to "normally" implement certain "plans". But that's not a problem either. Replacing "Aerial-1-1" with "Aerial-2-1" goes on so quickly that almost no one notices that something has disappeared and something new has appeared in the same place. This is how you have to deal with, for example, the landing of an AI plane after interception so that it lands at a different airport than in its original flight plan - for example, the one to which it needs to be escorted. There are quite a few "options" that would be nice to see in the mission editor as "ready" to use behaviors, settings of AI machines. But "everything" can be done, it just takes some good combinations

You obviously don't know how to use the mission editor... You set up the AI plane, you set the waypoints for it, when you fly over to it, you get close to a set distance, the plane ignores its waypoints, enters to the formation with you that you set with your plane and flies wherever you fly. If it makes sense, you intercept such a plane, and fly it to the indicated place - it can be a specific airport, a specific place on the border between countries, or any place/zone set by the missionmaker. There, the AI plane executes a script that tells it to, for example, land at the indicated airport, flies to a new indicated place abroad or performs any action you come up with in the zone to which it will be escorted. Where do you see the problem? I've done missions like this, I've flown missions like this, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a matter of knowing ME mechanics and being able to support yourself with scripts. It takes some time to fine-tune the details, but it's easy to do.

There are a lot of road sections where you can land a "regular" plane such as F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27. It all depends on whether you need to make an emergency landing and survive in the event of engine failure or fuel exhaustion, or whether you need to organize a Road Airport Section there. If the latter, it will be a problem, because if it is possible to land, some machines may have a problem with turning around and starting again. And more than one plane is already a big problem. And there are one or two stretches long enough to land and take off in the same direction on the entire map. Those that seem "perfect" most often have poles and trees at the edges.

This is not about removing the CFT from the plane. The question was whether the CFTs could be "bare" - without pylons for armament. Smooth and streamlined like an ass. But it was probably clarified pretty quickly that the pylon mounts are an integral part of the CFT.

The question is whether people creating modules and having quite a lot of work to develop them to fit into some standard, will bother with something that was not even an "episode" in the life of the aircraft whose module they create ... I think that approaching the subject rationally , they will prefer to invest their willingness and above-normative time in something more sensible

These pods very quickly turned out to be a complete "dud" when hanging them under the F-15 or F-16. In the F-15, they were never actually used operationally - apart from testing - and in the F-16 they were last suspended in a few cases in 1991 during Desert Storm. The F-15E and finally the F-16 turned out to be planes that do not need this type of armament. The containers were finally transferred from USAF resources to NG and are probably lying somewhere in warehouses covered by dust and fungus...

WHO be first... F-15E or F-4 ???

I don't know, but you can make the AI, after you get close to it, follow you and disconnect in the designated area or land at the designated airport. I suppose it can be done as you write - but I never needed it so I never tried. Since the wingmen fly in formation and can be sent somewhere by radio commands, it shouldn't be a problem.

I did not check - because I did not feel the need - from what maximum distance you can see the F-14 on the RWR in the F-15C. I bet that in specific conditions it can be much further than 70-80 miles. in any case, 80 miles is more than enough. Today, in the DCS, AiM-54 will not be able to successfully fire at distances above 40-50 miles. So to see an F-14 from 75 miles away is to calmly work out an attack position, launch the AMRAAM, and get away from the Phoenix without any sudden maneuvers.

But did you know that in the current DCS and its mission editor, you can easily prepare missions with interception, visual reconnaissance and escorting any aircraft to any point or to a specific airport? Anything you can think of in an Air to Air scenario can be done.

In DCS, flying the F-15C Tomcat appears on the RWR display at much greater distances. It all depends on whether you are checking the TomCat AI or the player's TomCat and how he uses his radar. Fighting live F-14 pilots in DCS I see F-14s on RWR a lot with over 70-80 miles.