KlarSnow

JTIDS and FDL are exactly the same in a mid 2000's context. If they are modelling Link-16 in an F-15C in the Mid-2000's it doesn't matter what they call it JTIDS/FDL/MIDS, its all the same capability and functionality on the Link-16 network. I sincerely doubt they are modelling the mid 90's JTIDS and if they are any of the limitations it would have (still Link-16 remember) wouldn't be relevant to how DCS does Link-16, or TNDL since that's what they are calling it now. the Knob in the cockpit is Still labelled JTIDS to this day (just like in the F-15E btw that you can see in DCS), and several of the MFD options reference JTIDS, regardless of what terminal is actually in the jet. Its still all Link-16 and can talk to and do all the same messages as any other jet, with all the same track display and reporting and link capability. Basically this is a non issue, if its a mid-2000's jet its going to be link-16 compatible whatever they end up calling it, and there wont be any difference between JTIDS/FDL/MIDS in DCS because that level of detail is well out of scope, and wouldn't really matter anyways since even if it was modelled, everything would still be able to talk to each other and display all of the data appropriately. If they said it was a "Mid-90s jet with JTIDS" then maybe you should be concerned it was whatever that small experimental group of jets was, but if its mid-2000's as they have stated its a non issue. The terminology FDL/MIDS/JTIDS is interchangeable once Link-16 becomes standard in the early 2000's. What specific radio you have in the jet does not affect your ability to get on the link and transfer information in any meaningful way that could be represented in DCS.

If it’s a mid-2000s F-15C then it will have -220s.

The F-15C was heavier, but the wing design was the same. The 7.33 G limit for the A and C was the most restrictive part of the envelope (mach 1.05 at a heavy aircraft weight at a specific altitude IIRC) If however you are lighter than that, slower than that, or at a different altitude, the G limit will be higher that's what the OWS is dynamically monitoring. If you don't have a working OWS the G limit per the Ops limits is just that most restrictive part of the envelope over the entire flight envelope. Again this is all straight out of the -1. Once the OWS is installed there is zero differentiation in G limit between an F-15A and an F-15C, only is the OWS working or not. When the F-15A and first F-15C's were built there was no OWS, so they were all restricted to that 7.33G most restrictive limit until the OWS was installed. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/dd/1c/da/f0c1baa0d059b3/US4302745.pdf Patent to the OWS if you desire to read how and why it works.

Just to clear up the confusion on 9G on the F-15A/C in here. All F-15s were and are 9G capable. In the early 1980s the OWS (overload Warning system) was retrofitted to all F-15's that were not built with it (all A's, some C's that were not built with it) This system gave real time monitoring of actual current dynamic G on the aircraft, with warning when approaching over-G. This unlocked the full 9G potential of the aircraft. If the OWS is not functioning properly (or not installed) the aircraft is supposed to be flown under 7.33 G's (both A and C) to ensure a margin from the actual over-G since there is no warning or dynamic display of where the G limit is. This is all laid out in the TCTO's and the ops limits from about 1985 onwards, with no difference between the A and the C once the OWS was installed. The OWS is the beeping you hear as you approach the G limit and the displayed allowed vs current G in the lower left of the HUD. There is some discussion of this in the Eagle Talk magazine from the late 70's and 80's that you should be able to find if you look for it where it discusses the dynamic nature of the OWS and how it is dynamically adjusting the over-G limit based on current altitude, mach and aircraft weight, but the end result is that all variants of the F-15 could safely pull 9G's (and more as demonstrated several times) repeatedly over their lifetime. And again, all of this is the over-G warning going off, nothing in the aircraft limits your actual G pulled.

From the developers.

If you go back to the start of this thread 2 years ago, we already tested and compared the current missile to these fly out graphs. Spoiler they are extremely close. As in almost perfectly matching. Additionally you do have to modify the missile lua a bit to perform the test properly, since by default the missile will try and maintain the attitude you fire it at. If you disable all guidance and autopilot in the missile via editing the lua, so it will fly ballistically instead of holding an attitude or AOA, then it will in fact match the performance in the flyout graphs posted.

Aim-9B is the only one that cannot be uncaged. AIM-9J/P/P3 have no tone when uncaged.

The band switch has nothing to do with shrike bands. It was a switch added and then repurposed for shrikes later. with the -9/-10 shrikes (Mk49 and Mk50 seekers) it will select whether the shrike is in LOFT ATTACK or DIRECT ATTACK mode, and whether or not it has angle gating while on the rail. None of this is implemented currently. It is also not clear if this functionality was on the F-4E or if it was only implemented on F-4G's. The F-4E -34's do not spell out this functionality, but the switch and presumably the functionality was there. the F-4G -34's do spell out how this functionality works, and the F-4G has some additional lights under the AOA indexers to let you know if you have LOFT/DIRECT attack selected, or angle gating. Those lights are not present in the F-4E. In either case at the moment in Heatblurs F-4E that switch is completely non functional.

That’s awesome! Please make sure to have the option for on or the other or both in the route part, and then a clear delineation or label in the columns so that doesn’t get mixed up. another thought would be to add a wind corrected heading column. Right now what you are essentially creating in the kneeboard is the desired course from steerpoint to steerpoint, but with any wind, the desired heading will be different (so that the aircraft flies the desired course) it’s a fairly simple vector calculation if you know the winds direction and velocity at the altitude the aircraft is flying at, and if the winds are known for a navigational leg then this would be included in this kind of planning. Additionally for the loadout section, it would probly be beneficial if it’s possible to read the fuze and laser code settings that got added and have them displayed there somehow. That way you could at a glance see all of that info and what fuze/laser code/shrike seeker etc… you picked in the mission editor.

CBU-87/97 and CBU-52, and CBU-99 all have radar proximity detectors in the nose. If you are setting an altitude, it is an AGL altitude, not ASL. If you are not setting that, you are setting a time after release that the weapon opens.

Pretty sure in extreme northern or southern maps the mag var is going to be very difficult to deal with. Once you get that far north or south (60-70 degrees latitude)magnetic navigation starts to go out the window and true/celestial/other navigation methods are normally used.

The interlock off does not turn the seeker of the missile off, all it does is remove the requirement for IN RANGE and SHOOT lights to fire the missile. Its mostly helpful for doing close range stuff for boresight shots or where the WEZ computations cant really keep up. In real life they mostly flew with the interlocks out so they would never be inhibited from shooting if they needed to.

You are not locked to the target and the gunsight is showing the incorrect range. Look at the range wrap on the right side of the gun reticle, and you need to QC the radar for what it is actually tracking. It looks like you have a bad/spurious lock on ground clutter and it is showing you ranging out to 6,000 feet, which is where the gunsight is calculating your lead to, and the target appears to be well inside 1000 feet. You should see the range wrap almost completely unwrapped (at the 6 o clock position or non existent) instead of fully extended.

Mk-84 LD's are not approved on the inboard pylons, the fins and tail kit are too long and interfere with the landing gear doors. This is correct per approved loadouts in the F-4E-1 and talking with SME's. If you look at the external view you can see that GBU-10 and Mk-84 AIR are both significantly shorter length wise than the Mk-84 LD. They do not interfere with the gear doors.

While it may be difficult to have it auto generate the magvar, could there be a field where we could enter the magvar and then have it applied to the kneeboard charts? This would be pretty easy to grab and enter say in a field here with a checkbox to apply it or not, or as something that can be added, this is the one thing that makes using this kneeboard as a navigational aid difficult, because you have to manually calculate the magnetic heading or course, and most of the jets in the game fly magnetic, not true headings. On maps like nevada that can be a big difference.