blkspade

I also sometimes bring sparrows. I bring bravos because there are scenarios where they'll do what I want them to do better than charlies. Seeing as there are a number of flaws in the different missiles that some people have been very good at exploiting, the mix complicates things for them. Having bandits plow through your actives from 8-12nm after you've cranked or gone defensive gets old real fast. Also on those occasions where you have a frog foot trying to run SEAD on your base, bravos and sparrows intercept those anti-radiation missiles better.

Well according to the -1 the real F-15 has a switch position that selects GUN, SRM, or MRM. After that there is another button that rejects the current selected missile of that type.

I didn't say it was right way, but it gets something done. You could only halfway even call it a band-aid if the current functionality is actually wrong and the change further resembles its real life counterpart. Two birds, one stone. Obviously the AFM itself need further work and time, so its not like I'm suggesting something says now they don't have to worry about it.

Yeah it is technically a minor issue on its own, but it has an effect on the flight model. Which of the two could theoretically be fixed faster, with less debugging, to provide a tolerable result. One could argue the existence of the missile reject switch could be tied to issues of asymmetry, as I find it hard to imagine any other reason beside launch failure.

But didn't someone else indicate that it should be right wing first as opposed to the left. Until either the flight model is fixed, or the launching, the best work-around is to use certain mixed loadouts that allow you to sort to the right first.

The point I was getting at is these things while are in close proximity to the pilot but not in the direct plane of motion for the sound to travel in open air during supersonic flight. It makes sense that if there is sound from a supersonic projectile, that it would be quite consistently be producing noise behind it. With respect to the engines there wouldn't be absolute silence since some other the sound is going to be emanating from inside the cockpit behind the seat, but likely to be quieter overall than the sound of the engines that exists externally which you're ahead of. Whats most likely would be a change in frequency of the external sound being canceled out in supersonic flight.

Well that really couldn't be the case since some (largest?) portion of the sound would be the sound propagating through the air outside of the plane while other sounds would be though reverberating through the chassis.

I have found that if you attempt a tail slide the aircraft is likely to enter a really violent roll after it noses over. A roll that was way faster than it ever does in controlled flight.

While I wouldn't go as far as to refer to you as a troll, the F-22 is good in theory, on paper. You really can't claim something is the best at a task it has yet to actually perform. Sure it has enough things in place that should benefit it greatly in combat, once it actually sees combat.

The probability of surviving G-Shock (the sudden stop at the end of a fall) is something inherently common for all solid state devices, as opposed to devices with moving parts. So if any SSD does fail for any reason, dropping it would be the least likely reason for that. Sometimes you just get a lemon, but power issues can lead to premature failure. My OCZ vertex 4 is still going strong and nearing 2 years of continuous use.

I said it so many times before. The keyboard is an irrelevant complaint for not trying the FC planes. Anything you are likely to need in a split second, just map it somewhere, anywhere on your stick that seems to be the most logical place to have it. Anyone with a Hotas setup of an X-52 or better should have no problem sorting this out. This goes double for anyone with the Warthog, and having any amount of interest in the F-15C. It has everything you 'need' where it should be, minus the rotary on the throttle, and enough left over buttons/switches to fudge the rest.

Honestly even without that being explicitly modeled, its pretty easy to extrapolate with like 95% accuracy anyway. Once you get used to having a target locked/bugged, that you know is the one nailing/spiking you (1v1), you learn to approximate the distances. Plus the dots between 10-2 on the RWR line up with the VSD azimuth indicators perfectly.

It was this version of the -1, that would seem to indicate the point I was getting at. Section 1-10. It seems rather strange that with just full internal and center tank you'd have ~17500lbs of fuel, but dropping wing tanks when carrying 3 around this point leaves you at ~14500. Also I've been trying to figure out what mystical fuel type is used in the externals, since the math doesn't add up for quantities the same way the internal does if assuming JP-4.

Something I've mentioned before, yet seems to have been ignored, is the fuel flow from externals with 3 tanks. Fuel seems to get drawn from the center tank nearly all the times along with the wing tanks. I forget if it was the -1 or -34 that indicates that shouldn't be the case unless under particularly high fuel flow requirements. You end up with no point where you could jettison wing tanks and still have a meaningful amount of fuel left in the CL tank.

I really don't get everyone's issue with the 'keyboard' in relation to FC aircraft. I have been flying for years with either an X52, CH stick/throttle, and now a warthog. The level of modeling of the aircraft completely allow for like 98% joystick mapping. Anyone that flies the F-15C with a warthog could map basically everything that matters to the stick in its realistic location (mostly), and have buttons/switches left for fringe items. I pretty much only fly the Eagle and only use the keyboard to close my canopy, access rearm/radio menus, eject (if ever) and chat.

Confirming my attendance for my F-15C slot. 104th_Spade.

As I have pointed out previously, for what ever reason the sim sorts missile from left to right, leaving you even heavier on the cannon side. There is a way to work around this if you configure your load-out a certain way. I'd imagine the RL Eagle's missile reject option would prevent this as well it probably sorting right to left instead.

I don't think its accurate to use the example of the choice of brevity in relation to RL to define the AWACS as crap. For all intents and purposes that info still gets the job done. If a person is unfamiliar BRA and brevity that would even be used in their own flight, thats certainly not a flaw of the AWACS implementation. Now it failing to provide any information at all, or 3 mins after your bogey dope request, I would define as crap. Your primary issues seem to be ones of semantics.

Best way yo get over your discomfort is to, just do it. Start bringing Aim-9s. A lot of times you'll smack someone with one just because they know you're an F-15 and thus only expect 120s. If you get him in the hud bore sight tends to works out better, than vertical scan.

If your immediate response is to try and turn around inside of 6nm from a flanker once you're out of missiles, you should just eject. In most cases you would have taken an ET trying to get away up there. At the range you were at after you most likely saw your missile hit the hill, you should have just pressed in. Your chances would have been good to get inside of rMin. You'd have had a good advantage, and at least make him earn it as opposed to just bending over. If you ever get that close without receiving any return fire, you eat him for breakfast. I want guys to go for the notch vs a 120 at that range, its the ones that defeat them head on and keep coming at you that are the real problem. Those ones tend to be more susceptible to the Aim-7 oddly enough.

That's only a partial cop-out there. For the people with actual access to the code, and experience (preexisting code) with said feature, it is something that would technically be relatively easy. That's excluding whether or not have accurate information for the symbology. The most logical reasoning for it not being there is just that FC level modules don't get changeable MFD pages, so having 1 default view kinda gives armament precedence. It would certainly be far more useful to have given us the SIT page than the fuel display selector option we were given.

Rmax varies with altitude and closure rate, so that isn't universally true. My statements on Rmax and ECM had to more with AI handling though, both air and ground. AI won't fire HOJ now, and doesn't magically know if you're with-in rMax if you're jamming anymore. However, at the same time you can't break their lock after they have engaged you outside of burn-through by turning on your ECM. Best way to test this is the DACT BVR mission vs the MiG-31. Spool the ECM at mission start and keep flying to him. He'll engage with an R-33 from 50nm before your ECM is warmed up, but maintain lock afterwards and the R-33 will guide even with course change. If you try again but notch or extend while waiting for you ECM spool first then recommit he won't fire until 19NM. SAMs behave the exact same way.

What happens in-game currently is simply just a lost lock before pitbull. In most cases, due to current missile performance, a 120 fired outside of burn through range wouldn't intercept the target anyway. If target continues on the same course maybe you might get lucky and have them fly right into it.