Demongornot

I don't recall seeing any pictures (never saw any in real life as I am not in the US) of the F-15E without its CFT, there is too much advantages as the plane is mainly made for bombing and attacking rather than fighting anyway, so they don't need the additional maneuverability or thrust to weight, the CFT also give additional pylons and they are really aerodynamic, meaning turn one of the best dogfighter into a fierce strike aircraft, and nowadays there are almost no dogfights, at least for the US, so they don't need that, mainly considering that anyway they have the F-22 if they need to really goes extreme on aerial combat. It is a little like a lighter transformation of the F-15D than the SU-27/30 to the SU-34, btw I would love to see both F-15E and SU-34 dogfight, two fighters rebuilded/transformed to blow everything on the ground that meet on the sky. If they want to be realistic they could make the CFT removable, but it would be too OP to see F-15E without CFT loaded with AMRAAM on multiplayers, because of that alone, they might not make them removable. @AeriaGloria they can in real life ! The best image showing them unfitted come from Wikipedia : In fact they can even be mounted on the F-15A/B/C/D, here is a quote and an image : And here are two pictures of F-15C (the first might be a D, I can't tell from the front) with CFT :

Well, I think I found the lowest one.

Well it make perfect sense then. It basically act the opposite way a ground effect vehicle (like the Ekranoplan) work. Here is a video to show and explain it a little : First you have to understand than an aircraft with wings and tailplane or canard and wing is controlling its pitch attitude by changing the balance of lift between the wings and the tail/canard. A self stable ground effect vehicles (GEV) work in a really simple principle, the tailplane is higher than the main wings and is made to provide lift. What happen is when the GEV get closer to the ground, the main wing because of the ground effect becoming stronger, will generate more lift than the tail, creating the same effect as if we pulled the stick, it will have a nose up tendency, making it regaining its designed altitude. On the contrary when the GEV get too high, the main wing loose lift as the ground effect reduce and the tail who was already partially or totally out of ground effect won't lose as much lift, meaning the main wing is now providing less lift than the tail, so the GEV will have a nose down tendency. Both self stabilizing the GEV so it stay on its designed cruise altitude without colliding with the water or climbing too high and stalling without any human or any system input. Basically an aircraft with the tailplane lower than the wings will have the opposite effect, being closer to the ground, the tail is more effective, meaning that it will generate more lift, and for the same speed, being closer to the ground will cause a nose down effect. If the flight computer, or the pilot don't compensate for that, the aircraft will probably crash, it would take a really specific configuration so that the main wings counter enough the nose down and avoid crashing when being really close to the ground to avoid that. The question is, does the flight computer of the real Hornet trim the aircraft by usings its weight distribution (fuel, payload etc) and its airspeed, or does it counteract any pitch effects when the stick is neutral. If this is the first, and I guess it is as the second one would create bad behaviours when the stick is slightly moved out of neutral, then the computer need to be coded to take into account the ground effect, and considering that aircrafts aren't designed with extremely low flight for fun in mind, it won't surprise me if it don't have any code for that except maybe when the gear is out or potentially when flaps are half/full. So if in DCS the aircraft have a nose down tendency when in ground effect (even a small one) then this is basically this effect reproduced, but if the aircraft don't show ANY pitch change and the aircraft simply loose altitude, or even require a higher nose up attitude to keep the altitude constant, then this is a bug. Note that the nose down tendency might be really small, not seeing it doesn't mean it is not here.

I don't have time to search it myself but if you can't find anything it might endup like the A10C where this is too classified and they basically did not implement it.

Thanks, interesting informations, so basically it work like the DCS Russian system of flight director + the ILS lines, the Space Shuttle also had a flight director system on its hud :pilotfly::thumbup: This indicate how accurate and better than only ILS lines this is as the Shuttle can't really have the luxury to over compensate or go around. Can't wait to try this !

Great summary, also maybe rolling the aircraft "help" because roll always create a little yaw movement and the engine centrifugal force is also a factor, so this may happen only at certain regimes.

This is both because of the aerodynamic and loadout, both are always linked together, weight distribution determine what goes in front and aerodynamic what move, how it move and what goes on the back (well this is an over simplification of course). But the F-16 in this video is probably 100% the same as the regular on the aerodynamic aspect, only the payload itself make it different, and I think they simply put regular pod, tanks and AMRAAM rather than modified ones, so the real unknown is more about the flight computer, but if the one that we will have in DCS have a flight computer patch for that, they'll probably know about it as they probably have the relevant documentation. Note that I haven't done any research at this point, I just pointed out an old video I remembered. So now if we do researches, we can start to find answers, here is one : Here about the causes : https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-16-spin-recovery-technique-invented-24842/ Asymmetric loadout coupled with inlet mounted pod is responsible, also we can see that this is a really old article (08 OCTOBER, 1997) Note that I posted this link because I think it is rule 1.16 safe, but there is many other sources, including an official PDF doc but it is a download rather than an online consultation, search for : "SAFETY INVESTIGATION REPORT HELLENIC AIR FORCE F-16D BLK 50 S/N 93-1084 341SQ/111CW ALBACETE AFB (ESP), ALBACETE 26 JANUARY 2015" To quote the PDF : So I think this is a F-16 + asymmetric loadout related thing, no need to modify anything like putting fuel in one wing only or something else, also they used AMRAAM in the video, not the heaviest weapon, they could have use bombs instead, I mean the 120 is twice as heavy as the Sidewinder, but the Maverick is twice as heavy as the 120. HARM is heavier than the Mav, Jsow is even heavier, and the largest bombs the F-16 carry are even more, so why only 2 vs 1 AMRAAM and put effort into putting fuel in one tank only or changing the center of gravity ? I mean the goal was to research how this can happen in combat situation.

Well I don't know how they code their flight model, but I really don't think they code specific behavior, but rather make a realistic aerodynamic representation of the aircraft which end-up "automatically" reproducing those behaviors because of the coded data of lift, drag, stall angle, rudder masked from airflow at certain angle loosing efficiency etc And in this case my question is really, will the flight model be accurate enough to reproduce such characteristics. Any behaviors caused by weight change over the normal should be actually reproducible in the flight sim if we put similar weight if the flight model is advanced enough. Same for speed and altitude, the flight model should reproduce it by itself if we do the same. I really doubt that the flight model, for the SU-27 or SU-33 include specific line of code for the Pugachev Cobra for instance to tell at which altitude, speed, weight etc to perform it, but rather it being a result of the simulated aerodynamic property of the aircraft. And the aircraft in the video is probably 100% identical aerodynamic wise to the regular one. Well, true they can't know what is the flight computer used in this video or if it was modified or not, but I guess if they are gonna model the flight computer, they'll know what it does or doesn't contain, which include potential fix for this out of control departure.

Wait, did I posted it on Wishlist or was it moved there ? Well, we know for sure the F-16 will have realistic flight model, no new aircraft since LOMAC got released with simplified flight model (flying on rail as you said it), since LockOn: Flaming Cliffs introduced the SU-25T with advanced flight model, no new aircraft had it after (except sub variants of existing LOMAC aircraft I think), but this doesn't mean that our F-16C Blk 50 won't have a flight computer system to prevent this or that the flight model will be actually accurate enough to model it, which is why I asking. And well, if I am asking now, this is because I would like to know now? And also to point out this particular effect on the Viper.

I have seen this video a long long time ago, this is an F-16 with asymmetric missile payload in certain conditions. I don't know if the F-16 we will have in DCS have a software patch for this behavior or not, and if not, would the flight model be able to reproduce such behavior ?

Interesting infos and nice details about the engine, good to know. I guess the post on my link isn't really good for an Engineering stand point but it should probably suffice to give a basic idea of the cockpit layout and features I guess.

I was browsing to find ILS related stuff about the F-16 and I found this : https://www.quora.com/What-do-all-of-the-controls-in-an-F16-fighter-jets-cockpit-do A guy posted a long and detailed description of the F-16C block 50 cockpit, well I don't think there is any sencible informations as the DCS manual will probably be more detailled, but I hope I won't have a wild encounter with the rule 1.16. So for those who haven't flown on that other F-16 sim that shall not be named here and don't want to read through the flight manual (which I guess isn't really reader friendly as it is more to contain data and information than teaching something) it might be interesting !

Nice ! To be honest I did not bother to check it, first because I don't know the Viper enough to identify any models, and second because this wasn't easy enough to find a cockpit picture where the ADI is visible, and I can't imagine an early model having ILS capability which is removed on latter models, so I imagine any models are good enough for this purpose. Well I didn't know that, I haven't found any hud landing video where the ILS was in use then. Nice to know, since I'll surely buy the Viper, I like the idea that ILS approach can be done through the hud.

Well if you look at the WIP screenshots of the F-16C https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/screenshots/1201/ You can see the ADI have the two yellow lines which are ILS glide slope and localizer indicators, I guess they stay visible because the aircraft is still WIP, and I think only ILS capable aircraft do have them. Those are visible in the real world one too when it is cold and dark : But they aren't in flight though, hence why I think they are visible on the DCS one in flight because it is still WIP. Here is an example of a running F-16 without those lines on the ADI : But I don't think it have the ILS shown on the hud, only on the ADI, I've watched a bunch of video making this comments of F-16 hud landing and none ever have an ILS on hud, though those during airshow and emergency landing are kind of normal as you don't need it (often the final turn is really close to the runway) or don't have the time to set it up. But none of the regular landing had the ILS on hud, including night landing where the hud is visible from helmet cam. And of course none of the video of cockpit landing I could find have the ADI visible, the closest I found was this : At the end there is the final approach, but the pilot's body hide the ADI.

He probably just lied. And why ? The 2000D is a great aircraft, better than the C as more modern. I mean we both have : A-10A, A-10C SU-25A, SU-25T Fw 190 A-8, Fw 190 D-9 And soon F-15C, F-15E And technically the Huey and the Cobra are somewhat "the same" Having different variant isn't bad at all. But again I seriously doubt there is any truth behind that.

"The story is bad" This is a French movie, what did you expect ? xD We Frenchs can't make good stories :lol: I love this movie, the scenes are incredible, the musics are beautiful.

At the end of the video we clearly see that this is someone asking for Heatblur to do it, and the title of the topic is "Please" how can anyone think this is a FAKE or trying to be a fake ? Though I agree this should be in wishlist sub forum. I would love a Mirage 2000D or a 2000-5 or even better a 2000-9. But I think all 3 are still too classified for that to happen, from what I know France don't like publicly sharing info about its military tech, even for older things (which is why I was surprised to see a 2000C in DCS).

Not surprising with HOTAS and modern avionic. With older aircraft you needed so much additional controls but for modern aircraft the computer do already a lot for you, you don't need tons of buttons because of HOTAS and the way its buttons can be used for multiples modes, so there is way less workload to operate sensors.

Don't worry you didn't do anything wrong, there links don't really contain anything sensitive, actually IMHO posting the links of the 3D models who are for other sims is closer to break the rule 1.15 (which forbid talking about other sims in this forum) than your links are to the rule 1.16, but I am not a moderator so its not for me to judge on that.

Well I feel sad to break it for you, but there is really low chances it would happen. This aircraft would require lot of dev time and it don't have a high demand, compared to other big aircraft like a B-1B for example who have more action oriented flight (low altitude) or even a KC-135 which allow for lot of fun/interactions refueling other aircrafts, others like the popular WW2 B-17 which is popular and allow for action as those were escorted (allowing to have better coop/interactions) and were often under attack, and with all the turrets and side guns allow for a lot of actions. While the carpet bombing aspect seem pleasant, the B-52 will often fly for long route then drop bombs at high altitude and return to the base, there is little to do with it. Though I agree that if a lot of peoples do rather regular fly of airliners in other sims which last for hours, this is far from unrealistic to get players to fly realistic missions with the B-52. Also the number of crew stations there is mean a lot of development efforts. Though the positive side is that the exterior 3D model of the B-52 is quite simple as it don't have many complexes curves like a B-1B for example, and it don't have many surfaces features (though it is still far from sleek) and the cockpit contain a lot of analog systems and gauges so it is less complex than a full glass cockpit and thanks to the 8 engines, many things are identical and would allow for copy/paste. But it still have a lot of computer system from navigation to targeting, and the battle station would be far from easy to model accurately, it will also require complex AI for multiple stations at once. Also the cockpit 3D model itself will already require lot of work, and the other crew stations even more. So if you summarize all that you can guess it don't have lot of chances to happen. And well, this is great and really nice from you to post links to help, but I think all DCS third party made their own 3D model and prefer to refer from official documentations and blueprint rather than others 3D models so they have accurate and realistic product, also all the exterior 3D model you posted have way too little details for the standard of DCS flyable aircraft, even AI aircraft have much more polygons than that in modern DCS. The first link for example, the wheels are more square than round, the landing gear itself lack clearly details, even the engine pods are low poly. The 3D cockpit model you posted look like it have lot of details, but I don't know how it compare to DCS, but it don't have other stations than the cockpit itself (the battle station lack all controls) and the textures would never be acceptable in DCS. And you should know that the 3D model is not the most complex part of the development of DCS aircraft, it may be long but this isn't the most important part, flight model and avionic are far more important and complex. Official documentation like the flight manual (which only serve as a base, lot of details are missing from it, additional docs are needed) would be more useful, but don't post it on the ED forum as this is against rule 1.16 which is really serious and enforced, because some data that are freely accessible on Internet may actually contain things the military don't really want to see spread and it make ED it a difficult position.

Thanks for the info, it would be awesome if the buttkicker could also work with export functions, tho I understand that making it just amplify low frequency sound make it automatically compatible with any games and movies. Maybe one day we will have a gamins chair with vibro pad and buttkicker like integrated to it, and it would even double as a massage chair :lol: Nice setup, I guess it feel the same as buttkicker, but isn't it too loud to produce enough vibrations ?

Just out of curiosity as I don't own one, but could DCS replicate it with a Buttkikcer ?

Are you sure about that ? Because it appear they don't have many peoples in their team : https://razbamsimulations.com/index.php/our-team

Considering they have several others projects to maintain and develop before the F-15E and the low frequency of updates of this planes, this mean that it is still early in the development phase (all though they finished or are close to finish the 3D models apparently) and others projects will reduce its development speed, this is quite logical to think it will take a while to be released even in early access.

Well if one wind suddenly get enough low pressure and turbulences to stall only one wing, I don't think the FCS would have time to react, a little like the V22 Osprey when one of is prop was biting the prop wash, but apparently this isn't what you experienced if you weren't turning when it happened.