Demongornot

If it is during a high G turn, could it be a stall of one wing over the other causing that ?

@Sierra99 Thanks you a lot for sharing your experience ! Also I have few questions, AFAIK, the boom move around using his wings, but is pictures make me wondering... This picture show the boom locked without being in his retracted position, where, I think, the little bit on top of the boom near the aircraft serve as a locking mechanism (which I think is surprisingly close to the boom attachment, the leverage forces must be really high at this point...) so what is holding the boom in place here ? Does it have actuators, or the pivot mechanism have brakes, or does the cables maintain it ? (tho I have seen pictures of booms without this cable, but the it might work differently for other tankers models, so I don't know). How does the stick control the boom ? Is it rather FBW keeping it in place and moving the stick make it move around or maybe the boom position is the same as the stick position ? Also, can a Tanker fly on his tanker fuel or is it unavailable for it ? Finally, since you said you can pull the aircraft, I imagine you can probably push it too, and held it in place. While in DCS the boom is disconnected everytime we get to its extending and retracting limit, but I guess from what you said, and from pictures of the operating post you have where the probe extending is controlled with a slider, that the aircraft don't really push or pull the boom (from video I have seen, only big aircraft does that) and this is basically a boomer action, which may also mean that this keep the aircraft in place more than in DCS, and also that rather than disconnect when we reach the limits, the boom can push or pull the aircraft within reasons. Something sad, in DCS the boom don't get out of the way of an aircraft who fail to maintain formation, making it even harder to practice since it is easier to crash into it and have to restart from scratch. And I think for beginners it will be easier to refuel the F-16 rather than the A-10 as pilot tend to try and chase the boom, or than the F-15 where we are further back and offset on the side.

I think it also depend on the operation, during a scramble I think AB would be used regardless of the payload since time is critical, and I don't know how exercises rules are, but when they train for scramble, and potentially for things like Red Flag, they probably use AB too regardless of the payload. But this is just speculations.

Ah, I see the problem here, OttoPus mean that using the right equipment to record/analyses and right code simulating real world sound, we can reproduce exactly what a real pilot hear, the same sound. While btd talk about what people feel is right and think is the proper sound. This is a dead end since even the perfect reproduction of what we hear, if someone never experience it, might feel it is unrealistic and another sound which is actually unrealistic might feel better and realistic. And on the other hand, even if we could find the sound that feel exactly the way we think it should be (tho everyone have its own conception of the thing, therefor making it impossible, as the concept of perfectly, it is subject to each person's tastes) it won't be how it sound in reality. Also reproducing perfectly what a real pilot hear is technically difficult and depending on the sound phenomenon we want to reproduce could be resources hungry, so the best solution is probably a mix of the two : Real world sound recorded the best as possible with a sound code which don't task too much computing power, and tweaking what can't be simulated for what feel like the most realistic end result.

The thing is, those 4 seconds shouldn't be needed as the volumes should be normalized. And the issue of the external sound slider in the menu is that not only it change how in external view the volume of sound is, but it also decrease external sound relatively to the cockpit while in cockpit view, which mean external sound are either too loud and audible in cockpit or normal and too low volume while in cockpit. "edit, totally rethink the subject" But lets be clear, I totally understood the point that if we could just put external sound higher while in cockpit without affecting the external view sound, it would be cheat because we would be able to ear better than what is realistically possible in real life. Now you exposed it to me it seem clear and I actually do agree totally. I'll be honest, I have absolutely no idea, I don't know how at all the level of perception of the external world's sound a pilot do have. If you tell me we can't, I'll take your word for that as you seem way more knowledgeable to this topic than I am. My point is about not having such a difference between the internal and external view volume, the limit of how loud we could push world sound while in cockpit shouldn't be based on our real life physical pain tolerance to loud sound when switching to external view or opening the canopy. The reasoning is that everyone will tend to set the volume on their headset/speakers for what they hear inside the cockpit, so that it is in a comfortable, not too loud or too quiet level, but when switching to external view or opening the cockpit, it then become louder and throw the balance away, even if this is realistic. I think here, rather than making the sound louder (for example for our own jet sound) it should simply be a different sound which give a sense of power and loudness naturally. Like comparing the in cockpit sound from the video of the OP, which feel loud and right as what we would hear from inside something with the low frequency and ambiance level as it is, to a sound like this which, even at totally equal volume, sound more powerful and clearly give the sensation to hear it directly : https://youtu.be/pypfQI_gRIo?t=66 Tho my initial thought of normalizing the sound level by preventing external sound to push more Db than the internal sound could seem like a good idea, the potential to be abused by cranking world slider to max and other sound low and just putting our speakers at max will indeed make external sound easier to perceive from the cockpit and give an advantage to the pilot doing this. The actual setup still intrigue me and still have the issue of loudness difference, and for someone like me who don't know how the external world is heard from the cockpit, it is actually hard to set it up. So why not simply having in cockpit sound being literally sound from the cockpit (Buttons/switch, electrical, gyro, air system and anything else that is only heard inside the cockpit) and the world sound affecting all external world sound but also own jet engine, APU, gear, flaps and other devices external to the cockpit, which include impacts/collisions and airflow. With the Betty/radio being controlled with the "helmet" slider. This way no one would be able to cheat by increasing the world sound because now this is linked to own aircraft engine too which would mask other external sound the same way for all users, and the cockpit/world sliders will now allow to balance preference ambiance (which is the whole point of having those two separate) without having cheat related issues, and this completely fix the issue of having external view louder than internal view, with a proper power inducing sound for the engine in external view and with canopy open, this won't matter if there isn't a volume difference between closed or open canopy/external view engine sound since their difference will feel authentically by the way it sound rather than how loud it sound. For more passionate peoples who don't what this, a "through canopy" option could allow external sound (own jet engine and world sound) to be louder when canopy is opened or in external view, since world sound perception this way is still limited by own engine sound, it can't be abused by changing volume sliders, while the option "hear like in helmet" rather than changing the volume of sound, simply apply a transformation which make sound more like if we had something in our head filtering most sharp noise and giving mostly a realistic through helmet experience.

Older radar probably did not keep horizontal level (I think it is the case for the Mig-21 and it is simulated in DCS (see edit bellow)), but moderns do, and they have a surprisingly high gimbal range : Tomcat : And more modern radars have fixed antenna and use complex electromagnetic technology to orient the radar beam but we don't have those in DCS anyway. Edit : I was wrong about the Mig-21, at least the variant in DCS, its radar keep horizon level, maybe older versions didn't, details here : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204207 I made the mistake because I remember a while back during the Mig-21 development a video (long gone) where the radar scanning area debug was visible, like this http://www.key.aero/central/images/gallery/6003.jpg and it was lock to the aircraft attitude.

When I said flicker this is because of the lack of a better word, I talk about the fact that the end of the plume isn't perfectly cone shaped and static, but rather it vibrate a lot, arggg I can't even words, I don't know how to describe that even in my native language, damn it dyslexia you win this type :cry:. Here is some examples if you can figure out what I am trying to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2MZi9dJ8vU Even rocket plume don't keep a perfect shape but rather move a lot.

I was literally asking a question, I asked if anyone know if they did not changes multiple things at once which may include radar...as ANOTHER change done in the same time, no need to be rude, mostly if you misinterpret what is really being said.

This remind me of this video : It look like the perfect experience !

I mean in comparison with the fixed camera or VR headset, the TIR is wobbly, it doesn't make it impossible or really hard/challenging to press button, but this is the hardest way. And well I love TIR don't get me wrong, but I personally prefer VR.

@Kev2go Wow, I already knew this radar was new and we had 0 chances to have it in DCS, but I did not know it was THIS new, apparently this mean that it may not even have been deploy on real combat missions yet. But what I meant is that maybe they upgraded more than just the UFC when they did change it, if this is that old and haven't been implemented a while ago this probably may mean that they waited for more things to upgrade/change as just changing this single thing might not be worth the effort, but I have no informations about that this is just speculations.

It all depend of your setup and what you would prefer, if for example you want to go VR it will be useless/really challenging to press the right button. The best way to use it would require you to plug a small USB monitor and attack it to it and export the aircraft MFD to it, otherwise this is easy to click one button away from the intended one by comparing the Cougar MFD to the aircraft MFD... If you want to make a simplified home cockpit this is the way to go, but even with a really simple joystick or a big Hotas it can be good, it all depend on your tastes.

I did not know the Tomcat could also burn dumped fuel, the F-111 is really popular with that. Yeah ! Who care about how the aircraft fly, fuel dump is a must have feature ! I think they should have modeled the Tomcat 3D model from the flame of the dumped fuel as it is certainly the first stone you want to put.

I think this is way more an issue in DCS (or any flight sim) than in reality, in reality this is easy to press a button in front of you while in DCS for the least advanced hardware it require you to : -Release Joystick. -Use keyboard to move view down and probably also zoom in. -Grab the mouse and try to aim at this little box on your screen and click it (and if you have pilot head movement affect by Gs option enabled it is even more tricky). -Reset your view and the zoom. -Grab your joystick back. With a more advanced Joystick with more buttons you can map camera controls to it and you can then keep your hand on the stick while looking down/up, but this is still an added step and you still have to zoom and use the mouse. The Track IR version might be better, but the way TIR move in a multiplied angle as your real head, it move around a lot and make it hard to press the button, but at least you can lean forward which thanks to the exaggerate movement of TIR make you close to the screen and you don't need to zoom anymore, but the camera is still somewhat wobbly because of TIR precision and your small head movement and you still need to click it with your mouse. If you use a VR headset well this is better since the movement are 1:1 and this feel more natural to look at stuff, but the button is still small (we still need to use zoom to see the displays unlike with TIR except if you literally walk forward, leaning isn't enough) but this is easier to click on with your mouse than with TIR, tho leaving your hand from the joystick to the mouse to simulate your hand moving in the cockpit is still far from the real thing. The best experience would be with VR glove or VR hands detection, and even here you still have the problem of displays visibility and small buttons which require you to zoom in, coupled with glove which wouldn't be as precise and intuitive (also having some delay making aiming with the finger a little bit harder) as your hand. So the real way to know what this is really for the pilot to click this button would be to have a home cockpit with the buttons and working display at the same place as the real one, and even if you have a little advantage over the real pilot because you aren't forced to wear the gloves and you are not subject to the aircraft movement, there is still, as probad said, the fact that real life operation are different, they tend to have less actions, in real life a pilot can spend a long time just flying and he have a lot of time preparing things, things happen in a certain pace, while in DCS peoples haven't that much time available and it tend to have more action accelerating the pace, which make pressing buttons outside your HOTAS feel time wasting.

Ah, the famous afterburner wish... There is issues is that afterburner visibility depend on a lot of condition, the most important one is luminosity, in low luminosity and at night afterburner is visible but during the day it is almost invisible. There is also how the air is (humidity and other particles) and there is also the debate between yellow and blue flame (or the white ish one with either a little bit of blue or yellow to it), in some conditions it is still visible in the day light condition. Altitude is also an important factor, Also the angle where you look at it, and even the camera ISO settings influence that... The only certain flame we see is the F-111 when it dump fuel and ignite it :D Just look images for "Aircraft afterburner" or even "Falcon afterburner" and you'll see that even in the specific case of the Falcon, it can be visible or not, yellow, blue or white, really bright or faint etc. But maybe you talked about a higher resolution one or one with good lighting effect or one with animation where the tip of the flame isn't static but "flicker" a little like the video ?

This sound great, but yeah there are two issues with sound from video like theses, not only the pilot don't hear the same sound/level but also the camera is hard mounted and get more vibrations which alter the sound, tho it is probably not that far, without an helmet the sound is still probably a little different in the cockpit. The issue of "hear like in helmet" is that DCS don't normalize volume, and external view/free camera/crash camera and other are extraordinary loud, which mean that when you set your volume to be comfortable with the helmet option, everywhere where the filter isn't applied basically explode your ears. Even without this option the internal/external sound difference is way too big. And lowering environment sound to avoid becoming deaf if anything else than cockpit view is selected mean that you ear even less what is outside, meaning you have chances to miss an enemy sneaking on you for example...

What I wonder based on the very little available informations about the F-15E upgrades, is how can you guys can be sure that the upgraded UFC wasn't part of a bigger upgrade which could potentially change things such as electronic warfare system, IFF, Datalink, radar software, hardware or the whole radar for the APG-82 AESA, sensors like RWR or anything else that is still probably too recent to be declassified and even if they could get their hand on the informations they will not be allowed to model it ?

Your welcome, and well I actually wrote it for you, I haven't been active for a while on this Forum, and I may still be consider as the guy with bad English who complained about everything about DCS :megalol: I am glad this motivate you to start virtual flying, well you can still just spawn an aircraft in the air and learn yourself, but you won't know what really happen and you might get some misconception about some things, so better learn properly. As you say, this isn't a tutorial by itself, this is just a list of what to learn, I think you are more than qualified to find those informations by yourself, and you can choose from what support you want to learn (video, images or text) with that, I tried to list every important point/things that you might miss like Trims or PAPI that beginners probably ignore while this is an important thing to know ! Your welcome, yep, it would be sad if you were to upgrade a rig which is capable to run DCS with the settings you want, I hope you are not prone to motion sickness, and if you are, you better prioritize performance (FPS and fluidity) over visual quality, personally when I got my Oculus Rift I still had my old HD7970 Lightning BE which was quite potent in his time but not for VR and I ran DCS with around 15 fps, but I was still able to fly like a maniac without getting sick, while other person might require at least 45 fps or more to avoid motion sickness, so there is no definite settings/rig to have, it all depend. If you want to use a monitor, you might want to invest into a TrackIR or cheaper option (homemade version) or webcam face tracking software. Rudder with brakes axis are a must have, it is like the clutch and H shifter in Sim Racing, I personally have the old Saitek PRO Flight Rudder. The A10C and Hornet are the best option to get ready for the avionic of the F-16C, but the F-5E is really good at giving you a taste of modern US style cockpit and fighters world and aircraft with afterburner. But honestly, the more module you can buy, the better it will be anyway, tho you won't have the time to master many modules before the F-16C Beta is out, but even if you love the Viper, from time to time you might want to try out another aircraft, but you just need to listen to Dos Gringos to quickly get back to the Viper spirit :D

The thing is, Aviodev started with the C-101, which mean no earlier source of income and probably a small team, mainly when we consider that hardcore flight simulation is already a niche which don't generate tons of profits, and in top of that they made an aircraft as a third party which attract less customers than official ED/Belsimtek, and since they haven't made any previous aircraft peoples did not know how good/serious they were, which mean even less of early profits. On top of that they didn't choose a popular aircraft (I did not even know it existed before they start making it) and it don't even have many real aircraft built which is another factor. Tho for itself it have the fact that this is the first and only Spanish modern aircraft, even the first European before the Viggen came, and having two variant make it interesting to buy, this is literally two for the price of one, on top of that it is also an aerobatic aircraft, which have a great appeal. I understand the choice of this aircraft as the first aircraft because it lack modern avionic, the most modern piece of equipment is the hud and this isn't a modern style hud with many data, only one for aiming and even here it is really simple even the AIM-9 it carry have better avionic, the cockpit and avionic are simple, it don't have targeting pod or radar or optical sensors which make it even easier to make, it lack built in cannon, it don't even have flares or chaff etc. So for a first aircraft to make this is actually a good choice as less avionic mean easier/shorter development, but now they probably increased the size of their team after getting enough purchases, mostly if they aim a more complex aircraft, and since the new aircraft they aim to do is more popular and have a high demand, it appeared on wishlist before Aviodev appear on DCS community, they can increase their team size since they will make profits. So this time it won't be too long to make the multiples variants. Keep in mind that a lot of things are reused when making other variant of an aircraft, from existing 3D models to physic model (which depending on how different the aircrafts are can be anything between few tweaks of weight balance and stuff like that (like the A-10A and A-10C which are basically the same thing in term of aerodynamic feature) up to a totally different aerodynamic model (Su-27 and Su-33 are different enough that just tweaks aren't enough) and I don't even think the F-1 exterior changed except for the refueling probe. And even if the avionic is different between all variant, even in the M it isn't that modern which reduce the complexity. So I am not worry about them making 4 variants.

The most important question is how much about aircrafts do you already know ? If you are new to aircrafts, this will be useful for you : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3961481&postcount=6 Just ignore the last part where I talk about going from the F-18 to the F-16 off course. But if you already know a lot well as other peoples said, learn first about startup, learn the cockpit layout, functions, avionic and then with Chuck's guide + in game tutorials and the Hornet Mini-Updates which details new features and how to use them, you are basically covered.

But the question is, is this manual about the US F-15E or about the export variant ? Anyway, maybe this have simply been on paper for a while but what I think happened really is that without the need to change multiple things on the cockpit this wasn't worth it to modify the current fleet just for a single monitor, which mean its advantages aren't consequent enough to justify that, and those who have it may simply be F-15E build latter, old ones having a cockpit upgrade(tho all F-15E pilot cockpit I found even old ones have the same cockpit layout so if something changed it might be avionic related) or replacement and they took advantage to integrate it or maybe they simply experimented with it on some aircraft to see if it is worth upgrading or how the pilot feel/like it or integrate it well. One thing we know is that this f-15E is serial number 88-1695. Also I found this post : http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/304101-f-15e-148-from-f-15i-gwh/&do=findComment&comment=2914150 This is about model aircraft, it look like they care a lot for details and were talking about the cockpit, but I don't know where he got his sources from, but if this is correct, 2010 is probably way too new to get proper data about, since it probably have more changes than just the UFC. One thing for sure is that there isn't many pictures and video of the upgraded UFC, there is even more pictures of the Glass cockpit of future F-15 variants (like the canceled Silent Eagle, the F-15S or the 2040C, even tho most come from 3D renders or simulators) in fact (the one I put here appear multiple times on research and there aren't many other pics of F-15E with the upgraded UFC). But one sure thing is that we will get the old school UFC, mainly if we consider how advanced they already are in the cockpit model and textures as can be seen here : https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/photos/a.316309961788982/1948182498601712/?type=3&theater The post isn't that old considering they work on several aircrafts, so there isn't many chances that they decide to redo parts of the cockpit.

Also for your specs, your CPU is still decent, it is still one of the fastest quadcore, upgrading it mean aiming for 8 cores or more and I don't know in the current status if DCS prefer CPU speed or core count, but I don't think the 6700K will be a bottleneck. The 1080 is still one of the fastest graphic card, the other options (TI or 2000 serie) are expensive for the performance gain. 32 gigs is good enough and Intel aren't as sensible at RAM speed as AMD is so you might be clear to go. SSD only improve loading time not performances, this is just conform and not performances, and Warthog + VR headset mean you have everything (as long as you have a rudder). If you want to upgrade your hardware it just depend on your budget, but your computer is already high end and upgrading it will be expensive regardless what part you want, even the CPU which is the cheapest part to upgrade will require a new motherboard. If you want a new thing/god upgrade, when it will be actually working, you can buy one of the VR glove that DCS will support. But at the end it is just a matter of how far you want to push graphics settings anyway. The default Georgia map is great, but I think the Nevada is the most popular of the addon maps, considering it was announced (had a really old beta) and known a long time ago and buyers of the Beta of the A10C have it for free, Normandy is more for WW2 aircrafts and Persian Gulf is more for carrier based aircrafts.

Sorry for the wall of text, I'll give you advise by making assumption that you don't know anything about aviation for this to-do list, so skip what you already know (even tho you can learn more than you already know about them too) I'd advise you to download DCS World as you have two aircraft for free, a TF-51D Mustang and the Su-25T. Start learning the basic with the Mustang, being a prop aircraft it will be challenging to takeoff at first, but it will teach you all the basics about aircraft mechanic while having a simple (and not hard to understand) avionic and instrument panel. But first, start with learning the theory on Internet : -The 4 basic forces. -The instruments (how to read altimeter and how it work, vertical speed and turn sync indicator, the rest are pretty easy to understand, but still learn about them too). -The basic controls and how aircraft react to control input. -Then the secondary effects like how the roll induce yaw or how you need to use the rudder while turning. -Then airspeed, AOA and trims. -After that you can learn about stall and how to avoid/get out of it, then about spin. -How the prop torque affect the aircraft and how the prop wash affect the takeoff. -You can now learn about flaps, airbrakes, spoilers (both are different), and other aerodynamic devices line leading edge devices, vortex generators etc and how landing gear deployed affect the an aircraft. -Now learn some terminology like runway, taxiway, flight level, angels, ASL/AGL, ground speed, airspeed, true speed and indicated speed, phonetic alphabet, the terminology and procedure used on radio with ground and tower, also what is the PAPI and the landing pattern. -Now learn about how the radio work, with frequency and channels, then learn about VOR, DME, TACAN, ILS and even if you are curious also learn about the Transponder and the IFF even tho you won't use it at first. -Also learn about Gs and its effect on the pilot and effect like G lock, greyout, blackout, redout, passout etc. -Tho this is optional, learn about the various lights and when to use them. Those are the basics, I might miss one or two but with all that you are clear to go to the second step : -Learn the difference between a taildragger and conventional landing gear and how to turn/taxi with them. -Learn the basic of how an engine work and the limits of the Mustang engine and the different gauges about the engines in the cockpit and the WEP. -Then an important aspect for the Mustang is to learn about prop pitch and constant pitch propeller. -Now this is time to get familiar with DCS itself, the interface, the options, the most important part is the controls and the settings of the axis and their curve to be comfortable, then other settings and the mission editor. -Now learn the game mechanic (keys for radio, menus, ground crew, spawn etc). -You are now almost ready for the Mustang, first you need to learn its cockpit and avionic and most of the controls. I think the ingame tutorials will then be good enough for the rest, learn how to cold start, then to taxi, don't hesitate to create a simple mission where you spawn a controllable Mustang on an airport and experiment with taxiing after this mission to get a good feet of it as the tutorial mission is quite short, then get faster and add more power, don't takeoff yet, just learn how it react at speed and try to maintain a straight line. Once you are good enough at it now you can follow the rest of the tutorial about takeoff (tho you can skip it and spawn a Mustang in the air to experiment how to control it before doing takeoff which is a better idea, and once you successfully takeoff if you do it first), you can experience with flight itself and try out various speed, climbing, rolling, yawing, stalling and recovering, trimming, gear up/down, flaps, don't fear to crash you are here to learn, and doing mistakes is an important aspect of learning. Now go back to takeoff and practice it again until you can do it properly, which mean getting a good trajectory where you kept a straight line on the ground then don't deviate too much from the runway once airborne, don't have excessive bank angle, no need to be perfect, just having a good enough control to avoid crashing or being close to crash, you are good once you consistently takeoff safely. Try doing aileron roll to learn the turn rate and the inertia when centering the controls, pull up violently to learn how it react to high AOA, pull some negative G (keep in mind that this aircraft can't do 0 or negative Gs for long until the engine get fuel deprived) and inverted flight (which is tricky at first) and experiment by yourself how the aircraft react. -Now you can learn about gliding, finesse and ground effect and experiment flying low and slow over a runway to see the ground effect in action and get ready to land (try maintaining level flight over the runway while maintaining speed and avoid stalling) which is both a good exercise to master control over the aircraft and airspeed/power, keeping a level flight and also teach you about ground effect while preparing you to land. -Then now you can try out the landing tutorial, then once done spawn a Mustang (on air to do it quickly or at ground cold and start if you want to do everything) and learn without the tutorial to land until you get a clean landing, don't aim for the perfect kiss landing, just good enough to consistently get the aircraft in one piece on the parking and ideally avoid bouncing (tho this isn't easy for rookies) and practice conventional and 3 point landings. -Once you know how to takeoff and land, its time to do it for real by adding some wind and practice with it, no need to put hurricane level wind and start with a low wind speed and increase progressively. -Now you can learn more advanced stuff like energy conservation, you would probably have done looping by yourself by now, but this is the ideal time to do it (again) to understand better the airspeed/altitude energy relationship, this is also a good time to learn how altitude affect your aircraft (engine power/efficiency, speed and maneuvers), you can also try to do proper barrel roll (not aileron roll) where you can try maintaining a constant G load, then you can learn the basic combat maneuver like Immelmann turn (which is a really basic one) but a good example to start. -After that you can now learn one of the hardest thing on civil flight (dogfight, carrier landing and air refueling are harder), which is to maintain a good formation flight, start at a certain distance then progressively get closer, you can learn it on multiplayer but I'd advise you strongly to first make a mission with an AI aircraft following waypoints (far enough to avoid having it turning constantly as you will struggle at first to maintain formation flight during a turn), put a lot of waypoints so you have time to do it, you won't learn much if you constantly have to restart each time you were close to maintaining a good formation because the AI land. Practice what you aren't good enough at, there is no secrets, just practicing to become better don't burn steps and don't try to learn too quickly. Once you have done that with the Mustang you can now learn the Su-25T, since it have simplified avionic (no clickable cockpit), it will be a simple conversion, tho you will need to learn Russian style cockpit and instruments and adapt to the different units used (meters and kmph for example). Also you will need to adapt to jet engine which are slower to respond than prop but you don't have torque anymore and during takeoff the aircraft goes straight (if you don't account for wind or asymmetrical load), also conventional landing gear make it easier, but the Su-25T can still be a little challenging to land at first and won't tolerate too hard landing, but the SU-25T flight smoothly and is easy to control in air, but this is easy to overspeed with it. -Learn the Russian HUD and the rest will be covered by the tutorials. -Once you've done the tutorials you can learn about the SPO and missile avoidance maneuvers including what are Flares and Chaff and the Fox1 Fox2 and Fox3 air air missiles and SAM (know your enemy) from both sides (US and Soviet). -Now you can learn more about the tactics and procedures to combat solo or in MP and master the air ground armament of the SU-25T. Once you've done that, I'd advise you to buy the A-10C, because unlike the Hornet it is completed (the Hornet still miss a lot of features and there are still bugs) which will help you getting familiar with the US air ground armament and the use of a targeting pod but also with modern avionic and HOTAS and MFD/MFCD and smart weapons while having a easy to control aircraft (which will help you focus on the avionic and armament, tho the A-10 lack power and dislike high AOA it is easy to use and the autopilot is really simple to operate) since a lot of the air ground payload he have will be found on the Falcon. Also if you want to keep your Hotas Warthog it will fit well for the two aircrafts, at least for the stick, you can still try to find the throttle of the old Hotas Cougar (or one of the lesser known version or homebuild option). Just learn how the MFCD work, get familiarized with the US style hud and the specific of the A10C hud, the RWR and it is now a good opportunity to learn about the ILS and follow the glideslope. If you are ready to buy more aircrafts before the F-16 is released then you can choose the F-15C (or buy directly Flaming Cliffs 3 for now or MAC when it will come out) to learn about air air combat weapons and strategy and get into dogfight, or do the same with the Hornet (or both FC3/MAC and Hornet if you can), both will teach you air refueling but the Hornet will introduce you into SEAD, air ground radar (when available), various radar modes, and tho both cover carrier landing, the Hornet is a totally different experience for that, also the Hornet have some other common air ground weapons with the Falcon that the A-10C lack. And then you'll be 100% ready for the Falcon !

From what I have been able to find, this was an upgrade for the export version of the F-15E and only latter got integrated into the US F-15, so tho the display itself might be old, the variant of the US F-15 which integrate it might be too recent to find decent docs about, but I am just speculating.

AFAIK the reason why you accelerate more while unloading G is due to the fact that the aircraft AOA when you push down is close to 0, which mean that rather than having a light positive angle to generate lift, you here go completely ballistic, therefor your aircraft cause less air resistance cause you don't have any angle, you attack the air perfectly straight having less surface exposed to the incoming airflow. So basically it might drastically change from an aircraft to the other, the F-15 for example with his big wings and large flat body might have a clear advantage unloading G over the Hornet or the Viper who have smaller wings (in surface area) and a slimer body. But you still have to fight the air in front of you nevertheless, because only a fraction of the original area is decreased, so maybe the Hornet isn't the best at this.