blkspade

The ER is crazy fast at high altitude. So it already does what you want it to, you just need to change your launch parameters. At 10km separation you're almost always down in the dirt, and the 120 has significantly less drag.

Your argument is pretty much null since the 120 doesn't require terminal guidance. If you find yourself frequently engaging human F-15 pilots not maneuvering and continuing to "guide" 120s past pitbull, then sure maybe you have a point. Still that requires the (near) same launch parameters from both sides. Even still there are even now rare circumstances where the ER does reach an F-15 before pitbull, but they almost never happen in PVP engagements. If that situation is likely, I'll cheapshot.

My idea there is that there would be a trade off somewhere in the programming. That if one were coded differently without the other it would result in undesired/less realistic results. Of course I don't know how any of it is programmed now, like not every hit does maximum damage, but whats it based off of if there is a specific fuze trigger point without there being fragmentation.

I'm guessing the lack of fragmentation modeling is the core reason for fuze detonation point. I've seen missiles get scary close to a target that detonation would likely damage or disable the aircraft, but they just don't blow. Just a couple days ago I was in an engagement where I had pretty much kinematically defeated what I assume was an ET. I looked over my shoulder in time to see it slowly creeping up me from my 8 o'clock. It was close enough that I probably could have read the markings on it, if my initial response wasn't 'oh sh*' hit the burner and climb. It was definitely guiding to me while my TEWS was clean, but did not have the energy to climb with me. As close as it was a proximity detonation would have certainly done damage.

I think the single most awesome thing to come from a DCS: F-15C module (assuming MSIP-II) will be the JTIDS/Link16 datalink. Code which would transfer into the F-18C. Logically all the back-end code basically already exists from what makes the A-10C (pilot-to-pilot)and Russian (awacs-pilot) datalinks work.

I think the idea is finally have a DCS Fighter. Everything with the DCS tag thus far has been focused on air to ground. Someone mentioned forever ago that F-15 pit already has the parts in place to make it clickable. With the AFM likely nearing completion, if they are even considering a DCS F-15C then its probable they managed to get the data they need for the systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the radar just needs little additional work, and IFF probably won't be modeled for the same reason it isn't in the A-10C.

Ever think that the best people for the respective task requirements for either project are already on the task. Its possibly that the F-18 is beyond the point that they could use Beltek, or no where near needing them yet. Or how about the probability that certain technical aspects of what required to get everything up to par in the hornet are reliant on other projects, like Edge. Something that no one working on modules could probably even be useful for. DCS Eagle could just be way nearer to completion, and have zero bearing on the progress of the Hornet, other than providing further revenue to help toward the Hornet. There are so many potential constraints to the development of the Hornet that it makes more sense to get the Eagle out the door first. Consider the fact that all we've heard about DCS F-18C is that its coming, while much more tangible info has been provided about a potential DCS F-15C.

I think you mean maddog instead of pitbull. The AI typically doesn't maddog unless they are your wingmen and you forgot to tell them to turn on their radar. Even then they are technically locking a bandit with the missile in visual mode. Anytime you get hit with your wing man's 120 it really your fault. Either he wasn't given a Radar on order, or you gave him an engage order on a bandit you are also engaging. I only give wingmen the basic Engage Bandits command when I intend to be behind them.

It was removed a couple of patches ago. I think because its non-existent in the actual F-15.

Either I did something wrong the other day or they tweaked R-27ER. I took one to the face in a situation I almost never would usually. I should probably look at the Tacview now that I think about it.

I started employing some of the techniques I read about for engine management in IL2 for the P-51 in particular. Reducing my MP and RPM in the dive and increasing them in a climb. Seems to work favorably for energy efficiency and managing temps. I actually end up so fast in the dive I have be really careful not to snap my wings off, as I have done a couple times. I still haven't gotten an outright kill on the FW190. I've managed to tag him a couple times and eventually maneuver him into the ground twice.

With drop tanks there is usually more than enough fuel for a couple engagements and RTB without completely depleting your internal tank. Unless of course your jet of choice is the MiG. I typically counter long refuel times by getting back to base with around 50% fuel. Some other people simply choose to respawn instead of waiting for fuel, which I think is lame.

What actually confuses me about the fuel flow indicator is that it decreases in flow as you climb, which is expected, but as you shallow the climb or level out it just goes right back up. You would think that the decreased fuel flow associated with climbing would be consistent once you reach the desired higher altitude.

Its better practice to bring sparrows. At least in situations where you know there is a friendly between you and the bandit, or mixed in with, you can fire that off instead. It sucks when you didn't see the friendly either in the notch or poor prf selection and fire off a 120 thinking its clear.

He actually engaged the autopilot altitude hold. If you look at the video again more closely you'll see that his distance from the waypoint is changing, and thus not paused.

That makes even more sense given the mention of non-combusted fuel flowing back to the LH main tank in the P-51.

I haven't played the original LockON in forever now. The first thing to try is to actually tell them to turn on their radar. If you don't they try to engage without it, which means getting close enough to use weapon sensors for target acquisition. I'm assuming you're flying Russian and I'm not sure if AI EOS use is the same, but that would still require them to try and get closer than if they use radar.

You can't use it as in interact with it. All you can do is look at it. Its safe to assume you can just ignore the CSET prompt because of this due to the limited fidelity of FC jets. The only time you'll want/need to bother with ILS approaches is in crazy weather. I suppose if you're really new to landing its helpful for setting up a proper glide path, but the F-15 is quite easy to land if you get your speed right.

I'm pretty sure the in game 120 doesn't work exactly like that. Whether in TWS or STT if you still have the bandit locked when it goes active (pitbull) it will generally guide to the bandit with an active lock. If the bandit manages to notch or spoof the missile, it will reacquire anything else if it still has the energy to maneuver. I have a tacview of an enemy 120B killing me that was shot at my wingman. We split in opposite directions, when the missile lost him, it made a sudden sharp turn to me.

All the fire and forget missiles stand a chance at mis-tracking into unintended targets in close quarters. Once in MP an enemy Su-27 got team killed right next to me by an R-73. We were basically in a scissor dog fighting, and there is a good chance the missile was completely intended for me. The other guy over took me and showed no sign of panic when I locked him up at his 6. He didn't realize he hit the wrong person until it was too late.

I got owned once by an AI helicopter while in an F-15.

Yes the scan zone is very sensitive to scan range. Often you can miss targets that are closer than the middle point of your currently select range because they are actually outside of your cone at that range. At some point you'll be able to extrapolate how far/close a contact is on the RWR. It'll be a rough estimate, but it'll give you an idea of where reduce your range to for more accurate scanning. Since TWS mode doesn't automatically track targets altitude change you'll eventually reach a point where you'll have to STT lock a target to keep them locked.

Its not that they slipped past. I think it was a combination of operating close to the Iraqi airfields and some IFF issues on the F-15 side.

I believe the original off-topic topic was having F-16s on CAP as opposed to F-15s. In which case it wouldn't (typically) matter how they match up against each other, but the potential threat to the strike package. Another reason to favor the F-15 is its ability to carry 2 more air to air missiles than the F-16. More 20mm, and fuel. Keeping strikers better covered, for a longer period of time.

I'm a bit curious as to where this conclusion comes from. Combat records a side, having a single engine alone is kind of a strike against survivability or battle damaged aircraft recovery. I've read somewhere at some point its one of the main reasons the US navy prefers dual engine jets. Then theres the topic of multi-role craft making trade-offs that leave something lacking in there respective areas. The F-15C is designed and trained solely for A-A.