Njinsa

That's not a worst case scenario as there's no refund option, someone already checked EULA. The worst case scenario is far worse than RB suspending delivery of fixes and updates they have done in previous month or bailing out of DCS. Hope we will never know the details since they both converge and have it sorted out.

RB dev, 3D/art.

Agreed. Details on dispute slowly emerging to the surface...seems like RB is cornered. No going to take sides here, but bad had just become worse.

You're right, that's not correct. Razbam has visual damage modelling pretty low on priority list but I'm sure more realistic model change like panel delamination, control surfaces or fuselage structure failures will be added later. Same for hardpoints, sensors and weapons. IMHO, that's actually what you should get when speeding above limits.

GBU-39 is currently missing in DCS. If ED decides to model it, we might be left begging RB to support it, I guess as a part of 2010 era jet 'service pack'.

Yes, you might be spot on. It seems B and C exist in DCS, Vipers have it, but if RB sticks to the historical framework, we'll get A model.

From unofficial roadmap on Razbam Discord channel... SMART WEAPONS (JDAMs/LJDAMs => WCMD => JSOWs) => GBU-15/AGM-130 => (maybe mavs) So far it does seem plausible that, from weapons perspective, 1st year after launch, we get also CBU-103/105 and AGM-154A/B/C. Those are already within ED's shared/deployable code repository with most ED's resources allocated to test and Q/A. GBU-15/AGM-130 are indeed, like Ephedrin said, a valuable asset to use if sales drop below expected values. It does the math by extending at least another year after JSOW. I hope that in that case Mavs would arrive sooner in spite of fact that on F-15E they had really very small tactical use and are massively overperformed by other standoff weapons.

Maybe we should listen how ED, Wags specifically, see actual DCS moment and what are key platform vectors for future. This was cast with Mover, July 2023 so it's by all means relevant. Skip to 27:00, that's the moment when he expose 4th Gen air FF remaining potential. The rest of show is also very interesting as it discover realistic standpoint to platforms like F-14D, Gripen etc. My takeaway from this is that ED alone is almost finished with 4th gen air, focusing on ground war refactoring, maps, performance/engine and AI. Maybe they take a bite and put a tag on Gripen if SAAB is really in the game.

There are people that appreciate work being done on APG-70 for other reasons and certainly not for what you mention. Those people focus on F-15E and it's systems long before this module reached EA. Different people = different views. Viper is a pile of fun not only because it's feature complete, but because of simplicity and easy of use of simulated systems. People with no nerve/time to track steep learning curve in Mudhen are better served by Viper. BTW, if you own Mudhen, you would have learned so far that 35-40nm head-on FL400 shots against co-alt bogeys from Mudhen are extremely common in kill counts.

I always thought that DCS is held back from wider acceptance due lack of dynamic campaign engine, stable and convincing weapons behavior, smart system resources allocation (MT and Vulkan API wise). Now I get it. It's about storage we need to take care of. Seriously guys. This is a niche and almost dead game genre which is everything but optimized. If one can afford a decent GPU to run this spaghetti piece of early 2000s code, how much more it takes to get a dedicated 1TB drive just for DCS.

New, important status for GBU-15/AGM-130. Quote from RB discord: RAZBAM_Zeus67 — Today at 2:35 PM Just a quick heasd-up re GBU-15/AGM-130: ED provided the instructions for mid-flight corrections, a.k.a. flying the bomb. Good News! AGM-130 has GPS navigation RAZBAM_Zeus67 — Today at 2:36 PM Still they will not be available until after JDAMs are released

That's a very nice compliment to Eagle drivers. They also have space for keeping some Rubik cubes. A few of them actually :).

This... "We don't exactly know how much better it would be than the C-5 but at the same time I doubt ED knew everything about the C-5 either. " ...is exactly why this C-5 vs C-7 story is worthless with respect to expectations. If they (ED) wanted, they could copy C-5's model and guidance logic into C-7 years ago and claim that under certain conditions, missile will perform better, not disclosing details or providing use cases. Wags was very, very clear on what could be done with publicly available data and what stuff is not worth of putting business at risk. No legally obtainable docs, no model. End of story.

I beg to differ. It's important to some people and by all means not ultimately critical for others which have another idea about F-15E use cases and prefer it over competition in spite of current or permanent limitations. F-15E is already a excellent DCA platform but it takes time, skill and some good will to master it. Radar set already makes both 16/18 quite uneasy in 'one on one' which in turn leaves them happy in limited scenarios like you described. Huge growth potential of this platform lies in dual crews which are already a thing amongst die-hard fans not usually visiting those MP. Experienced Pilot/WSO tandem consisting of 2 or more ship config will soon prove to turn odds in different direction. BTW, TFR came in F-15E alongside LANTIRN IOC in 1991. That defines it as integral part of system with at least 10 year precedence before FDL was fielded IRL. There are more features that fits into same timeline or prove to be an easier task for developers (i.e. available documentation, less reliance on ED site etc.). After all, I trust they have a well thought roadmap providing balance between gameplay, fidelity and stability. Manage expectations or move on.

Disagree, it's not a military grade 6DOF sim pit. They already might have enough data from -1 manual, they can extrapolate a lot with E clean configs and C combat loadouts from respective -1 manual. Only serious drawback is lack of SME insights which could validate the FM general behaviour, but that's of the reasons why I wrote 'until 2030'. If there will be real training/cap sorties involving slim Mudhens while DCS F-15E gets all planned EA and CTU toys, nothing is impossible. It's just not worth (for most of us and developers) more than a thought now and for some close future. People asking for it are usually not interested in F-15E and have a big skill issue using that platform as it's supposed. Their loss.

Wags shared some valuable insight in recent Youtube video. Basically, 4th gen birds are almost done. Eurofighter is last one in development with Grippen and Rafale falling short of unclassified docs. Russian platforms not allowed, especially after 2022 events in Ukraine. Focus to shift on stuff like century class platforms. Personally, I rather put my money on F-15E getting CFT off option until 2030 than ED ever resurrecting C model as FF.

Correct.

...which was 'hijacked' straight from F-15QA.

If they are, they won't tell before it's done.

Ground radar is still and will remain extremely valuable avionics asset, especially on F-15E which is built around radar. GPS and satellites can't compensate almost anything that ground radar deliver in terms of building a good SA picture which itself is crucial for task/mission execution and platform survival. Mobile targets are extremely important as parts of enemy IADS elements can present credible threat and negate a valid portion of pre-flight intelligence focused on static target obtained by satellites or ELINT. TPOD can be primary sensor only for platforms which have limited volume for hosting a radar set and for mission roles that are not connected to interdiction or DEAD. If used as suggested by SMEs (even in this early stage of game release), you can get nice map patches with visible/usable reference points and a target picture from a safe distance. Mobile targets can be picked up from 30 miles so that plays along too. When within 20 miles, ground radar should handover the focus to TPOD. Currently, there are a tons of uncompleted functions on most systems with stopgaps that need time before they are done as was IRL. Some things are within ED exclusive control so don't expect it anytime soon. Things will improve over time as we just started scratching the surface.

+1 Mavericks are more like old flight sim legacy where things were 'not complete' if you don't have them in arsenal. F-15E aged really well and there are a lot of better Maverick standoff alternatives like GBU-15 or AGM-130 we expect to land on racks at some point of time. Then JDAM, SDB...a lot of fun. @Punkmonkey22 I guess there's no point stretching the topic on F-15E derivatives which use weapons we won't have integrated in F-15E as USAF never performed IOC or never supported operational use even with IOC (Mavericks excluded).

It would not match as C and E internal tanks (Tank1, wing tanks, feeders) fuel capacity is not same. This is valid assumption from opening post. 1 this is not a bug and in real life these airframes have substantial weight differences

+1

@GGTharos - empty 34600, type 5 CFT (empty) about 4400, according to 1993 dash1 (-229 engines).

Hardcore F-15 fan here, too. Data is not a problem as a lot of info lies in -1 manuals. FM could be derived out of that. Main issue is lack of SME experience in this particular loadout (or their opsec limitations) and level of guesswork Razbam decide to introduce in a product they feel should stay as realistic as possible. FCF flights are regular but so far operational CAP sorties with live ammo without CFTS are yet to be confirmed. If I may ask - what's the main driver behind this request ? Lack of perspective for FF F-15A/C or BFM-ing ?