SgtPappy

Yup, I think we know and we don't mind :)

Fantastic news! :D Thanks for all your hard work, BST! And a MiG-15 to battle too? This is going to be great. I must say though, before the game is released (I know it's still subject to change), I'm pretty sure all F-86F's with non-slatted hard wings had the same bent pitot tube as the earlier designs shown here: Unfortunately, I'm just not savvy with the Wikipedia images which never open at the size they preview at, so here's a link) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:531st_Fighter-Bomber_Squadron_-_North_American_F-86F-35-NA_Sabre_-_52-5193.jpg#mediaviewer/File:531st_Fighter-Bomber_Squadron_-_North_American_F-86F-35-NA_Sabre_-_52-5193.jpg And another shot of an aircraft model:

Hopefully we'll get it with an update just like DCS P-51D got a Fw 190D-9 with a tweaked P-51D flight model so that the Mustang could have a historic opponent. Fingers crossed for the same deal here!

Sorry for my ignorance, but is the F-86F going to have an AFM as well? The screenshots look great so far!

Oh a bug? Okay I didn't really notice that one. I guess I'll keep playing around with the stick settings in the meantime.

First off, good job to all those who worked on the new F-15C AFM! It's amazing so far, and landing has never been so exciting! I'd like to know of any tips anyone has for IFR now that the flight model is tweaked up. I have a very simple AV8R stick and I'm finding it farrr more difficult to refuel my aircraft after the latest patch. I also noticed that the game does not steady your plane for you after contact, making things harder. Any help is appreciated! Thanks!

Yes, any news please! :)

Ah ok. Well that is interesting. Looks like we'll have to wait a little longer for up to date RWRs

Well that is strange. I guess they haven't modelled it because of some game/coding limitation?

Is there a reason that the Su-27 and F-15 do not have RWR antennas on their bellies? I find that showing an emitter my belly, I no longer receive pings from them. I know that some planes (like the 1960's vintage F-8E Crusader) had RWR antennas on the very bottom between the main wheel doors. It seems like this configuration was discontinued in the 70s.

I've actually been using the boresight every now and then in some fights, but I feel like I cheat when I do that because I should know where they are without the blind luck of boresight finding them. GG, sometimes I notice I try and lock up the ghost. But it becomes obvious when it's a passed reflection. Why is ghosting not supposed to happen for the APG-70? lunaticfringe, your tips will come in very handy when the enemy is trying to notch me. So far I've done most of what you said since I get a little bit more time to think when they aren't closing at me. And it usually works! I will keep the azimuth limits in mind though, as sometimes they are still able to notch me well. Blaze has explained the exact situation though. I'm painted, they're firing and not on my scope. I will try using this "short scan" technique online in the future. Thanks guys.

No no, I very much understand the altitude slice is a cone. I'm not studying radar types, antennas, scan zones, main and side lobe clutter and the rest at school for no reason :) What I'm saying is that say the bandit is at 15000'. Im zoomed in at 40 nm on my display, scanning between altitudes 0 - 25000'. I cannot see him on the scope anymore, he disappeared. I zoom out on the display to 80 nm with the alt. scan zone between 0 - 40000' for example. He reappears and is still around 15000'. At all times, I believe he is smack dab in the middle of display (i.e. I'm never at gimbal limits). Is this possible? Because it seems like that's what is happening. If it's not, then maybe the heat of the combat is just making me lose concentration.

Right. As I mentioned, although not explicitly, I was changing my PRF modes from Interleaved to High and eventually back. Perhaps he was far too much in the clutter as I couldn't pick him up even in HI PRF. Could my scan zones have somthing to do with it as well? I notice that as I zoom out on the display from 40nm to 80nm the altitude scan zone will increase from say 0 to 22000' to say, 0 to 40000' and sometimes they will show up. And correct me if I'm wrong, but sometimes they will show up at an altitude like angels 15 where I should have been able to see them before.

I've been experiencing some issues using the APG-70 radar of the F-15C in FC3. I was playing on the excellent 1980's weapons -=WAR=- Steel Beasts server flying in the North West part of the map where there are no mountains or hills at all. I finally find a target only to lose it completely even though he has locked on to me. So now I'm flying at around maybe 18000' to avoid Strelas and he's firing at me, from 12 o'clock. Of course he's either much higher than me or much lower but I still get nothing on the radar if I face up or point down. Yet he's still painting me. I'm left my radar in interleaved and my scan zone at max. I then tried TWS or a combination of different PRF modes, TWS and scan zone sizes. Still nothing. Next thing I know, a Strela shoots me in the face after I had lost enough altitude. Am I doing something wrong?

Just wondering out of curiosity, how does this affect your decision to purchase/not purchase FC3? At any rate, many MANY things have changed since FC1. In FC2 I managed to get an F-15 (fitted with all pylons but no weapons) to Mach 2.484 at 35,500' which corresponds to about 1642 mph at that altitude. I would imagine FC3 is similar. Comparing to the official manual for the F-15A/C, this is pretty darn close to the real thing. Some people have gotten it slightly faster.

Awesome! I found the book. Hopefully I can grab the info I need. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm doing a research project for my navigation course at school and I need to find some good references for radar research that will relate to my course material. The navigation course relates mostly to the mathematical problems involved in finding the position, velocity, altitude and attitude of an aircraft in space and relating these parameters to different frames of reference. There is a lot of linear algebra and a bit of vector calculus involved. The books I have on radar mostly look at radar range, PRF's, power output and the like, but I need to compare radar sets (i.e. cassegrain antenna vs. planar array) in context to my course material. Perhaps comparing the errors of the two antennas when tracking a 25m^2 RCS target at 20 nm out). Anyone have some good books for that kind of comparison or have any good ideas for me to research that relates to linear algebraic theories in navigation? Thanks!

Interesting... well that at least means it can be fixed by going backwards.

I am having this problem as well. I wish I knew what was going on!

Ahh that's too bad. But thanks for the info! I will, as pepin said, try flying on my own with just missile labels off then turn them all off and get used to it. Though the AI does suck at flying, they are good enough to find you much faster than most humans can. And they are more aggressive than in FC2.

Sorry, do you mean in the Controls menu? I have control over my own labels but if I start a server or build a mission, I can only enforce whether the labels are all shown or not. I want the labels for the aircraft, ships and vehicles to remain visible, but I want the missile labels to be off for every client in the server. Is this possible to set in the mission editor or the server?

Is it possible to turn off only the missile labels when creating a mission or launching a server? My friends and I like to play against AI a lot since we can face many different kinds of enemies in different scenarios. I want to start removing just the missile labels (and soon all the labels) for all clients but it seems the mission can only enforce turning off all labels or none. Thanks!

I too, am still on FC2. Been trying to find someone to play WVR with (heaters only or gunzo). I'm in need of some practise defeating Su-27's against my F-15.

Wait what? I'm just evaluating the maximum sustained turn rates of the two planes. And that happens to be at sea level.

Ahhh I see. I though as much. That makes so much sense! In real life, the pilot has to notify the ground crew if the plane is flown over the rated sustained limit right? In which case we'd have a lot of pissed off ground crew in the game...