blkspade

Using the term arcade at all in reference to FC3 is grossly inaccurate as well, and could be only interpreted as such by someone quite new to the flight genre as a whole. You don't degrade what is and has basically existed as "Simulation" simply because now a "more detailed" simulation exists. Having been into flight gaming/siming since the 90s there is a very clear distinction of what is truly arcade and where simulation begins. Call it what you want, but for the time being FC still is the best means to engage human opponents in dissimilar air combat in a semi-accurate fashion. Which to me is more meaningful then flipping a few switches, and dropping bombs on drones. Yes I have A-10C, and no its not that hard.

I'm sorry, but i read your post and laughed a little bit. I mean you have played DCS before right. I suppose its nice to dream, but thats a huge stretch. Edge will have to bring massive performance improvements before you could hope to pack 25 large detailed plane models in close proximity, and contrailing. Then you proposed at least 250 clients, on a DCS server. Besides the very probable various technical limitations, that would probably require the entire IL2 fanbase to move to DCS, and having most being content with non-pilot roles. That's before accounting for the fighter escort package, opposing force, and a crap load of MP coordination.

The FC3 F-15C radar is a reduced functionality version of what would be the AN/APG-63 V1. Basically its not modeled accurately enough for its version to really matter.

Not that this info is completely relevant, but thats not how multi-player gaming works. No game is 'heavy on your internet' unless you are the server. You don't 'connect with those 2000 people in a direct manner. The capability to host 2000 clients comes from a real dedicated server, on a network connection you could run your own ISP from. The netcode is probably also better. Your actual upstream/downstream bandwidth plays a very limited role on latency, as a client at least.

I do believe the only difference in dogfighting the AI in props or jets is the human element. The P-51 is just completely unforgiving to your slightest engine management mistakes, not to mention the less accurate gunnery aids. All the AI do the same things in action or reaction to your maneuvers. Its just infinitely easier to make up for an energy management error in a Jet than the P-51, vs the AI. As I got better in the P-51 vs the FW-190, I noticed the AI would consistently disengage with me on his 6'oclock low. He'd always have just enough advantage to out climb, extend and reengage. Some of this from the AI no longer being omniscient, and the lack of sensors. I've had the AI jets trying the stall fight just like the props, there is just an enormous margin for error.

Well somebody that actually dealt with these things seemed to think it made sense at the time to put it on paper. Obviously things sometimes things that are good in theory, don't pan out in practice. Its presence on the roadmap after 'AMRAAM (Multi Target)' would seem to indicate that would have been an option if the AMRAAM wasn't successful. Of course the F-15 has an ESA radar now, but no AIM-7s.

Its not like your answer was particularly extensive, as in it didn't take that much more typing to get a point across that doesn't sound(read) like someone being short with someone. It not far-fetched to think the mode would had some use given the time of the projection and when the AMRAAM went into service. Also given that the 2 missiles coexisted in loadouts for a period of time. The AMRAAM turned out to be the better choice obviously, its not like it couldn't have turned out like the time they decided the gun was obsolete.

This post is more useful than just being immediately dismissive. I kind of figured that the last section could have been intended implementation that didn't pan out.

Also whether or not the info on page 190 is accurate, its pretty obvious what its claiming. 'AIM-7M (Dual Target)' is exactly what it says. Your rationalization for the misinterpretation doesn't quite hold up, considering multiple AIM-7 launches at the same target was SOP before the F-15 and APG-63 radar. The chart shows the progression of functionality of the F-15 A-D and their radars.

Well its pretty obvious that there aren't any details on functionality in the document, merely mention of said functions, which was my main point.

Speaking of Radar A2A capability this wonderful document presents some useful information. So much radar functionality missing from the FC F-15C. Particularly interesting is something that indicates the F-15 being able to engage 2 bandits simultaneously with sparrows.

The AI's reliability on being predictable is still very useful. Not so much at learning tactics, but testing the limits of your weapons and theirs. If you have in mind a certain thing you'd like to test, the only variable is going to be how you fly, since the AI will act and react very much the same every time. They have apparently made some changes to the AI where they cheat less. For example in BVR they attempt to atleast be co-altitude pre-engagement. The previously omniscient AI would climb with you no matter what. Now however, if you climb with your ECM on and Radar off they won't realize your altitude change until burn through or you going nose hot. The AI Su-27 still seems to fire at Rmax of 31nm against my jammer, which I assume is still outside of burn through. The 2v1 scenario in an F-15C is at least survivable given how well tws and amraams function. While not absolutely likely to be the situation IRL, its still designed for the capability if the need arises. If 2 bandits present themselves in a manner that grants me a favorable advantage, then I'll certainly take them on. This especially true if there is some asset that I have opted to protect. This is obviously less likely to be successful in a Su-27. BVR against a single skilled F-15 is going to be challenging, let alone 2 that might be communicating with each other properly. 12nm is the danger zone for a human driven F-15 against Russian hardware. It still only going to be effective for the Su/MiG pilot if they get that close unseen. Once again versus 2 on comms, if you manage to get one the 2nd will likely be all over you.

I don't think the term 'weaker' is technically accurate. More functional for sure in terms of DCS fidelity. I somehow doubt the latest a greatest upgrades to the RL F-15E could be accurately modeled, but the C and E share many of the same components.

Seeing as the game always shows local IP of the computer, unless his gateway device lacks NAT functionality (bad for so many reasons), its gonna be an internal IP.

From what I can tell your are trying to host what would be a 'LAN' game over the internet. Unless of course you and your friend are actually in the same physical location without internet access you are trying to do this in the most complicated fashion possible. I can tell that you have a limited understanding of networking and the difference between a public an private IP address. Your immediate problem if you are trying to do this over the internet is that you're giving him the wrong address (assuming you have some sort of NAT routing device between you and the internet), that is your local private address. What you need is to provide him your public IP address provided by your ISP. There is a local means of figuring it out but going to http://www.whatismyip.com/ is quick and probably less confusing. The proper way to allow access without all the extra VPN stuff you have been using would be to open the UDP port in your firewall and/or router.

That is pretty bad ass.

You mad dogged that 77 I'm sure, and got lucky... LOL. You were probably the one MiG I lost low that I had hoped my wingman would pick up. You guys were putting that EWR to good use.

I guess I'm the only person that does 'dumb' stuff in single player, just to observe the effects. Like flying at 40k'+ at mach 1.5 just to pull up and fire a missile straight up and watching it in F6 view. There was actually point early in the FC3 release that would crash the game every time you'd try this. Once they fixed that, there an obvious point where the missile no longer has the speed for continued lift arcs and begins to fall back to the ground. There is a good amount of time that the missile is actually accelerating before the atmosphere starts slowing it down again. I haven't done it in a while, and if I could track myself in reference to the missile position I'd like to see if I could kill myself with a 120. Yes for sh!ts and giggles.

There are lots cross conversations going on about all the missiles. Obviously I know what should be compared to what, but from the in game perspective that is the most frequent match up. The RL physics of it all is an actual factor due to the AFM.

Its pretty obvious to me where the different principles of thought are in the design differences are between the R-27 and AIM-120. The R-27ER is faster to at altitude since it based on the principle that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The loft profile of the 120 would be a drawback in this respect (excluding the fact that both parties should be maneuvering). It makes up for it by not requiring terminal guidance, along with better sustained energy. To the point Kuky was trying to make about the benefit of the R-27's mass. Since gravity is a constant variable which acts on the mass, it only helps it in a dive but then drag would be increasing. I don't know the math to determine if one factor is enough to negate the other, but if the target starts to climb after a brief dive then the missile and its mass are working against gravity. Counter that with a long range shot with a loft profile like the AIM-54 or AIM-120, what ever mass it has is coming down on you the entire time in the terminal phase and has a chance to actually further accelerate after the motor has burned out.

Some caveats are that you've scanned the area ahead of time and can be reasonably sure there aren't any other bandit particularly close. Seeing as you don't always have a wingman. At the aforementioned range if the bandit hasn't returned fire, I like to keep my eyes on him. The range quickly dwindles down to 5nm or less and trying to pick up a bandit that close on radar that you lost sight of is difficult. If he goes completely defensive, you can choose to press or extend. The ones that go for the notch and succeed, you can be sure to break back into you. Its basically the point of no return if you end up that close in an F-15 vs the Russian jets. If you don't get the kill but force him cold, that extra 90 degrees could mean a lot for you escaping an ET if he comes around.

What happens is the bandit will likely break to go for the notch, or occasionally pull some other slick maneuver that will cause the 120 to miss. Some pilots are very efficient at dodging the 120. The AIM-120 and AIM-7 take 2 entirely different flight paths and maneuver differently. Because of this a technique used to defeat one is unlikely to work for both. It depends on the situation the bandit presents and what they are flying at the same time, and reacting faster than him to get the missile off the rail. Once again if you are not in AB at this range he will have trouble getting an ET to track. Best when used against a Su-27 or 33 rather than a MiG likely to fire an R-77.

This is why I initially said to reduce speed within reason.

No, you definitely want your initial shot to be fired with as much speed as possible. Slow down once its off the rail. Also you should never fire 2 120s at the same bandit while accelerating, with less than 6 seconds of separation. Otherwise they maneuver into each other and explode, when the bandit goes defensive. You want to not be using afterburner if you're within 12nm of Russian bandit head-on anyway. If you get him defensive at that range, keep him defensive. At 8nm 120s are likely to be pitbull off the rail, so an AIM-7 right behind it has a high Pk if the bandit doesn't refuses to turn cold. Inside of that range 1v1 you might as well press, because disengaging will leave you vulnerable to an ET if he recommits.

I only suggested it because I actually apply it quite regularly in game against non-jamming bandits in both single and multiplayer. Given the nature of how typical MiG and Su pilots fly and defensive maneuvering, its rarely practical/possible to get under them. There really isn't of radar gimbal for a heading adjustment to maintain a lock. I find it useful when I see them going for the notch ahead of pitbull, or to keep an AIM-7 on track. If need be you'll have room for your own defensive maneuvers and diving will give you speed back. Not to mention that if you get launched on from the deck you can lead the missile into the ground. Ideally he'll turn cold WVR, without a wingman, you can press and finish him off using that altitude advantage for speed and/or denying terrain masking.