Nahen

two hundred more push-ups, a dozen or so laps of the field, three times today and five tomorrow and maybe I can stand it.. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Im buying, download and install, then go in cockpit and living in minimum on whole month without mapping, start-up, and all this <profanity> Only go in and breath and watch... When shock Has ended then go flight

How do you not understand anything ... If you were born together with the F-15, and your whole life was interspersed with it somewhere ... Ehhh, why am I explaining this ... Even my wife doesn't know that she is in second place and today is Valentine's Day

When I spend the money, I will have the motivation to finish a set of sticks and throttles for the pilot and WSO Moving the preorder delayed my work by two weeks

OK, I'll search the ones I currently have on my hard drive, and if I don't find anything that makes sense, I'll do something new. Maybe, to make it more realistic, we will upload it to our server at a time that suits you, and you and your friends will fly this mission as a guests with us There will be no opportunity to "practice" the entire mission, only briefing and go forward

I'm ready....

Believe me, with the current state of AI, I can prepare a mission for you in such a way that none of the pilots will reach the goal and complete the SEAD task. I It won't be a million rocket launchers set up, just set with the head and "described" with the available functions - I won't even use any scripts other than what is available directly from the editor. There are two options - your missionmaker likes you too much and gives you the opportunity to complete the quest and return without loss, to feel have fun, - is unable to use the potential of anti-aircraft defense that is available. The last PvE mission within our community ended with losses of 50% of the starting machines - from about 20 planes, plus 5-8 helicopters, if I remember correctly. There were missions where after 25 minutes after the start the losses were 100%. I assure you that even the F-15E will not help much in this topic. https://www.tickcounter.com/countdown/3816402/f-15e-pre-order

You know, for example, on the public servers of the community of which I am a member, it is supposedly obligatory to use SRS ... And how is it in reality during take-offs, landings, etc.? It's the same with speed in Mach

Anyway, it's not important because the vast majority of DCS flyers - as I wrote, especially beginners - use knots.

Irrelevant. At 35,000, around 300 kts is around Mach 1. In an F-15 with three tanks, you won't be able to maintain that speed without afterburning. With two tanks, if you skillfully accelerate, Mach 1 can be maintained above 40,000 and without tanks at 35,000. At 40,000, Mach 2 is about 500 knots. In addition, the question of whether IAS or TAS 90% of "flyers" in DCS use knots regardless of the flight altitude, especially beginners. In the case of the F-15 module, it does not matter because you only have one type of speed given by the aircraft's avionics, so there is no risk of "discrepancy"

We don't understand each other at all... Digital Combat Simulation - something that is considered on the "game market" to be the most professional "aviation" simulator that gives a lot of machines mapped "quite realistically" to be called the most professional simulator of combat machines. And starting from this point of view, I don't understand why not develop it based on at least three conventional eras full of great planes - for everyone - and without fiction, prototypes, inventions ... World War II - dozens of planes to recreate - Soviet, American, British, German, Italian, Japanese... The period from 1945 to the end of the "Cold War" - again dozens of mass-produced aircraft by several countries... "Modern" times from 1991 to today... - ok, problems with documentation, etc., but probably not for everything. And suddenly there are planes that no one has ever heard of, which were created in one or two copies and not finished and not fully tested ... JF-17 in the hyper S-F version. I bet that the documentation - especially regarding the flight of this invention will be as valuable as the "default" parameters of the YF-23 ... or La-250 ...

A simple question - why make aircraft modules that were only prototypes? World of Tanks wellcomes... This one was also in two copies that certainly fly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg Probably this one too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9#/media/File:Northrop_YA-9_prototype.jpg Or maybe this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Lavochkin_La-250_Monino_2008.jpg I'm starting to worry about where DCS is going... I'm not attacking ED or anyone in this case. I'm just trying to understand what's the point of working on something like this to eventually want to put it in DCS? Just enough. I even secretly hope that ED will block this thing in case ... Maybe it's better for a team like Deka to use its design forces on e.g. MiG-27, MiG-25, Su-15, Su-17/22, Su-27 ... I think a lot more people would be happy with such FF modules.

DCS starting to turn towards World of Tanks? This plane was never built... In fact, there will be X-Wings soon... Only named Shenyang X-Wing to make it easier to push them...

I don't know if it's the resistance of the three tanks or the two tanks - but rather their weight, anyway, maintaining speed with three tanks and with two are two different things. That's why I avoid flying with three tanks. At altitudes above 35,000 feet, it is virtually impossible to fly without a afterburner, the speed drops to the limit stall very quickly. The only option is the afterburner - accelerate to 300-350 knots, turn off the afterburner and turn it on again in a moment and accelerate ... and so go around... With two you can safely fly and keep those 200-250 knots at high altitude.

I think the use of the term release for release is also damn confusing...

Half of discussions in this topic is only for fun

If there has been talk of a pre-order for the last few months and suddenly someone comes to buy a ready-made module on February 15 and will be disappointed, his reputation will only be tarnished, or he will gain the reputation of thinking differently... The more so that where he "comes" on 15 February and will want to spend the money will be clearly written PRE ORDER. But well, today 80% of people can't think logically... Maybe RAZBAM or ED write to anybody who has ever thought "DCS" a special instruction on what does PRE-ORDER mean? People let's be adults.

So if someone goes to the ED website on February 15 and clicks on PRE-ORDER, they will require a ready module?? Are you people listening yourself? What will we bet that on February 15 - if nothing changes - there will be a possibility to buy PRE-ORDER and that's how it will be described. Even if someone wrote today that we will be selling the Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle on February 15, there will still be a PRE-ORDER on February 15, and then what will someone demand of what? A real F-15E? On what basis? You have black on white - PRE-ORDER and not ORDER / BUY or any other idea... Not to mention the fact that the word "release" has several meanings... I don't think anyone thinks that we will "release the F-15E"... from captivity? From prison? Guys, lighten up a bit...

"..... is the planned pre-order relase date" - what is wrong?

In the case of the F-15C, the lack of a clickable cockpit is completely irrelevant to me. And so all that is needed to flying is on HOTAS And the fact that when starting the plane at the airport, I turn on the power with the switch on the throttle panel, and then I start the engines one by one with the switches on the panel, it is enough for me Ultimately, even in the case of the clickable F-15E, I will he did everything on the desktops and the "front panel" with the instruments and on the monitors. So why do I need a clickable cockpit

Physics is very concrete, issue letely depend on mass, speed, etc. The coefficient of air resistance depends on many factors. And it matters when considering any movement in the air. Hence the frontal crossection matters, the mass - and more precisely the resulting inertia - matters as well as the force needed to give any movement - in this case, the thrust of the engines. The 50% fuel F-16 and the 50% fuel F-15 differ in mass, cross-sectional area, inertia due to mass and acceleration. You gave values at 40,000 feet... did you notice what I wrote? The higher you go, the better the performance of the F-15. Why? Because, above all, the thinner the air, the less important is the aerodynamic resistance - frontal crossection. Therefore, as I wrote on low ceilings, the F-16 accelerates much better. Do you understand the difference between resistance at 40,000 and say 10,000 feet? This is just PHYSICS. Besides, what is the maximum speed of the F-16 and the F-15 at these 40,000? Can you pass? Because so far everything you've given with "numbers" coincides with what I wrote.

Spring

I think some like IR/laser pod.

I was thinking more like this

I use two versions of the flight depending on the conditions and specifics of the mission/task. The first - when you need to maintain CAP over the area of operation of allied machines. Most often in such a situation you have to fly quite a lot to the CAP area, then hang there for quite a long time and secure the indicated area. In this arrangement, the start with three tanks - which I hate - after the start I turn off the afterburner, climb 7-8 degrees and head to the target waypoint. Altitude 35-45 thousand and already above the waypoint a wide circular holding. If a threat is detected within 50-70 miles, course for interception without changing altitude and afterburner on. Attack from about 40 miles at a minimum of Mach 1.5. (without additional tanks because you won't get enough speed with them). After shooting down or when the enemy escaping, return without afterburner to the holding point and so on. If I don't have to, I don't come down from my ceiling. Speed and altitude - the basis of BvR. Second scheme - intercept/fight enemy which is about 100 miles from my launch site - launch, with two tanks under the wings, on afterburner, after takeoff 15-20 degree climb left or right turn, full circle over airport with exit to capture/position of the enemy - turning max with 2G. After a full circle, I usually end up at 40,000 feet at about Mach 1, 80-100 miles from my opponent. I cath level, dump the tanks and all the time on the afterburner towards the enemies, attack only around Mach 2. Nothing lower. As a rule, the effectiveness of the attack in such conditions AiM-120C is about 50%, i.e. on crowded PvP servers I ffly with 6 AiM-120 rockets, basically 3 certain kills. And a minimum attack from a distance of 40 miles and an unconditional departure around 25 miles from the opponents. Under these conditions, AMRAAMs basically hit the target at about Mach 2-3. They have enough energy to chase the target for quite a long time if they miss.