streakeagle

There are already multiple scripts available that simulate IADS to a decent level including shutting down radar when an ARM is in the air. Skynet is one of them, MOOSE includes a similar library, MANTIS. While a properly implemented IADS does a better job of engaging them enemy, it is also more vulnerable: the scripts tie in power, command & control, etc. So, you can degrade the IADS by taking out different components.

Adding enough EW modeling to support Wild Weasels isn't enough. By Vietnam, you need to model the effects of jamming pods, internal jammers, chaff corridors, and standoff jammers to replicate real-world combat results. ED's current implementation of the SA-2 produces exceptionally high kill rates. If you create a mission with realistic SA-2 site density, unprotected flights of USAF F-4s and F-105s would never have gotten through in the Rolling Thunder campaign. 1972 Linebacker I missions, which relied heavily on EW capabilities, would be impossible to model accurately. For now, the only way to recreate such missions is to use a lot less SA-2 sites and/or use scripting to simulate jamming, which limits SA-2 active operation. ED has quite a bit of work to do given their stated intention to model EW more realistically. While I am eager to see the results, I won't be holding my breath waiting for it. It could be years before tangible results are released into beta with most of the bugs worked out.

If I can only have one, the EKA-3B Skywarrior would be the best choice: it was a full-fledged tanker and doubled as a standoff jammer while orbiting near the coast of Vietnam: The EB-66 looked a little different, but an EKA-3B in USAF colors would be good enough for me:

The B-66 didn't just look similar, it was a direct derivative of the A-3 in the same way the F-4C/D was a direct derivative of the F-4B. Of course, the USAF made some alterations to suit its needs just as it did with the F-4. But they were just as much the same airframe as the F-4J and F-4E. Despite any differences incurred by USAF requirements, for my purposes they were the same aircraft employed the same way in Vietnam: standoff jamming. If DCS World provided an A-3 in its dual-role tanker/jammer configuration, I would gladly use it as a stand-in for the B-66. Re-skinned for USAF, it would be more than close enough.

If ED can reasonably model ECM/ECCM up to the 1970s, I would be very happy. Once the US took losses from SA-2s, jamming, chaff, etc. became important. Of course, the USAF and USN disagreed on the best way to handle the problem. Both used stand-off jammers in what was essentially specialized versions the same aircraft: the A-3 and B-66. But the USAF believed in using large, fixed formations of aircraft with noise jammers providing mutual coverage along with chaff corridors (like B-17s and B-24s with defensive guns). The USN liked giving each aircraft deceptive jammers and chaff dispensers. I don't know how far they are willing to go, but if they could model everything form Vietnam to the ALQ-101/119/131 series of pods and ALQ-100/126/135 series of internal jammers, that would cover my areas of interest.

Well, today's news informs us that ED is going to focus on improving electronic warfare. As such, there is surely a role for Wild Weasels like the F-4G in the future. The problem is how many years before this becomes a reality? DCS development tends to move at a glacial pace. I remember when the A-10C was coming out with the promise of a Nevada terrain with the F-16 and AH-64 just over the horizon. A lot of years passed before all of those things became a reality. I am not getting any younger.

We all know it can be much more realistically modeled. I have two huge books that are like bibles on ECM and ECCM for engineers entering that field. The fundamental techniques used and the equations that determine their effectiveness are straightforward. But ED doesn't want to make it more realistic. It is a conscious choice. The old board game series Air Superiority/Air Strike/Speed of Heat has better modeling of ECM/ECCM than DCS World. Strike Fighters 2 (a self described "lite" sim) has better ECM modeling than DCS World. DCS sets the bar pretty low.

Based on past statements, ED is never going to attempt to realistically simulate electronic warfare for security reasons. So, DCS World will always remain more of an entertaining and realistic game than a true simulation of air combat from Vietnam to the present. If you are presently enjoying DCS World with its current missile seeker and radar implementation, then you have already accepted the fact that DCS World is more of a game than simulator and always will be. If you can accept that fact, then you should also be able to accept the idea that an F-4G could be implemented in a way that would be fun and useful in the game, despite being far from 100% realistic. I am among those that would gladly buy any historical wild weasel variants including but not limited to the F-105G and F-4G. Wild weasel type missions are already fun and challenging in DCS World. Third party scripts make a huge difference for the problem of IADS behavior. The oversimplified and inaccurate EW modeling in DCS can make it too hard with super lethal SAMs or too easy with excessively effective jamming. Missions can be scripted in a way to move the difficulty level as desired to get the right play balance for fun and/or realism without worrying about all of the things that are modeled incorrectly or not at all. I would love to be able to model missions with the early F-100 WW, F-105F, and F-105G WW, as well as the experimental F-4C WW and final F-4G WW. As long as the RWR/ESM equipment provides information that looks/sounds reasonably similar, I could live with existing methods of modeling jamming effects. One additional consideration is that the F-4G generally retains all F-4E capabilities aside from losing the internal gun. From a multiplayer/gaming perspective, that makes it versatile even if in reality they were exclusively employed as wild weasels.

If I could only have one WW2 aircraft carrier, it would be Enterprise. So, for me, it is not a strange choice. Presumably, the F4U-1D with an Essex class will someday be available. With an Essex already in the works, what carrier should ED have done if not the Enterprise?

Without checking I can almost guarantee that this causes an integrity check warning. Confirmed in log: "WARNING SECURITYCONTROL (6840): IC fail: mods/aircraft/mig-15bis/cockpit/scripts/command_defs.lua" Some servers would still let me join, others are locked down tight.

I tried using the line I posted above and it had the same effect: it bumped the subsequent lines down by one, which makes the in-game control maps work. So, this is what my file looks like: RSI_6K_commands = { Mig15_Command_RSI6K_Volume = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_MicBtn = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetReceiverFrequency = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetTransmitterFrequency = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_TransmitterFrequencyFix = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetAntennaFrequency = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_AntennaFrequencyFix = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_ReceiveARC = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_Forced = counter(); --input commands Mig15_Command_RSI6K_MicBtn_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetReceiverFrequency_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetTransmitterFrequency_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetAntennaFrequency_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_Volume_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_ReceiveARC_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_Forced_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_TransmitterFrequencyFix_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_AntennaFrequencyFix_EXT = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_Volume_AXIS = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetTransmitterFrequency_AXIS = counter(); Mig15_Command_RSI6K_SetAntennaFrequency_AXIS = counter(); }

If you look at the pattern in the file, there are nine lines above the dummy entry and only eight lines below the dummy entry. It would seem the dummy entry should be the missing line: the MicBtn. Instead of a dummy line, maybe it should follow the pattern and read: Mig15_Command_RSI6K_MicBtn_EXT = counter();

I have flown the MiG-15 for years, but I had never mapped the radio controls. Last night, I finally got around to mapping the available knobs and levers and discovered the problems posted here. I agree with the above post. This module has been around too many years to still have problems like this.

The Forgotten is a small, very relaxed squadron that flies a co-op mission almost every Sunday around 3:00 PM EST. Generally, the missions alternate between a 1950s theme focused on the F-86 and a 1960s/1970s theme focused on the F-5E and A-4E-C. Sometimes, helicopters are available and at least one mission is almost exclusively devoted to the UH-1H. Some missions have included the F-14A, Mirage F-1C and/or the AJS-37 Viggen. Most missions last about 2 hours, but some may last 3 hours for long distance missions. Mission difficulty varies but is generally survivable for casual players. Most missions have spawn points closer to the objective so people that die can get back into the action before the mission is over. Other than the Sunday co-op missions and Discord channel discussions, there are no required meetings or training sessions. New players are welcome and can expect help getting started with flying any of the featured aircraft. The Forgotten hosts three PVE Early Cold War servers themed with Korea, Vietnam (featuring the A-4E-C), and Early 70s Cold War plane sets and missions. Search for "Early Cold War" and all of the servers should be visible if you are running the latest DCS World open beta. These servers are focused on the same aircraft as the weekly co-op missions, so they make a great training environment. Both the co-op missions and servers support SRS. Discord is the primary means of communication for co-op missions with a channel/room for each flight. SRS is reserved for communication between flight leaders. The Forgotten has a Discord channel called "Early Cold War Servers" that has voice chat rooms and discussion channels for the servers and co-op missions. You can find it here (if this link still works): https://discord.gg/rfpycnYgvy

Aerodynamic coefficients are a product of the physical shape of the aircraft. There is almost no difference in the physical shape and dimensions of an F-15C and an F-15E other than the presence or absence of the CFTs, the shape of the canopy, and some minor changes like the ECM antenna pods. So, no, it is not a hunch. It is physics. The F-15E gained some weight. So for a given angle of attack, the forces of thrust, lift and drag will be proportionally lower. But at the exact same gross weight and having the same presence or absence of the CFTs, the only differences will be in the center of gravity and inertia, and even those shouldn't be significantly different. The key difference would be the engines. But most F-15Es originally had the same engines as the F-15C. So the main thing bogging the F-15E down was the weight gain from structural reinforcement to handle higher gross weights (especially the landing gear) and having the CFTs installed the majority of the time.

Aerodynamically, the F-15E and F-15C are nearly identical. The only difference is the internal equipment which affects both total weight and weight distribution. Lift and drag coefficients would be virtually identical. The only changes should be modest changes in center of gravity, inertia, and total weight. If an F-15E has the CFTs removed and burns off enough fuel to weight the same as the F-15C, they should have near identical performance. Likewise, and F-15C with CFTs should fly near identically to an F-15E at the same weight. The only significant aerodynamic difference is the canopy shape, which doesn't dramatically impact overall performance.

By the way, the F-15E has been operating without CFTs for some time. Select units have been assuming the role of F-15Cs in recent years as the number of F-15Cs went down. As for the flight model being different without CFTs, it would largely be the F-15C flight model with more weight and maybe a slightly different center of gravity. F-15E Strike Eagles Now Flying Without Conformal Fuel Tanks On Air Defense Missions (thedrive.com) So, RAZBAM may not be able to afford the time and money to allow the flight model to accommodate the absence of CFTs on its F-15E, but there is real-world justification to do so. beyond "a small minority of people" who want an air-to-air variant of the F-15 with a clickable cockpit.

RAZBAM has refused to make it possible to remove the CFTs from the F-15E. Even with the CFTs removed, it is at least 2 or 3,000 lbs heavier than the F-15C, and the F-15C is heavier than the F-15A. The F-15A's engines were troublesome, but they also had a higher thrust rating. The F-15A and early F-15C still have the "turkey feathers" on the engine nozzles. I bought the F-15E, but I prefer to fly air-to-air. The Flaming Cliffs 3 F-15C's flight model is great, but the non-clickable cockpit and simplified systems are strikes against it. I could see a heatblur solution where there is the F-15A, FC3 level F-15C and then either an early F-15C or a modern F-15C. If there can only be one variant, I would accept the FC3 F-15C, but I would still rather have an F-15A. An F-15E with CFTs installed cannot fill the role of any single seat version in ACM except for the Alaska interceptors that carried CFTs. Even without the CFTs, the F-15E would only make a marginally effective substitute.

The improved F100 engines are digitally controlled the F-15A has the early F100 which requires more careful management like the F-14A with the TF30. In fact, the special power switch in the F-15A is functional, whereas the digitally controlled F100 no longer needs the switch as its function is automatically scheduled to provide as much power as possible for the current flight conditions. Aside from the engine response, I agree the flight controls would feel and respond the same. But the F-15C also has a slightly more digital cockpit than the A as well as a much more advance radar capability due to increased computer performance and memory. So there is a pronounced difference between the F-15A and F-15C employment in a combat environment, not unlike the differences between the F-16A and F-16C. I would much rather fly the F-15A and F-16A than the later variants, as they are much closer to the 1950s/1960s fighters I prefer to fly. The F-15A is actually a form of parallel hybrid control, combining mechanical inputs from the pilot with electronic inputs from the CAS, it is derived from a similar system in the F-4. The big box under the B-8 stick grip in both the F-4 and F-15 is a pressure transducer similar to the F-16's stick. That transducer signal is fed into the control system. It is an early form of fly-by-wire but maintains mechanical connections to the hydraulic systems rather than using electric actuators and pure computer signal control. It isn't considered true fly-by-wire as the mechanical inputs from the pilot are required for full control capability. But as long as the CAS system is engaged, the transducer and flight computer regulating the controls surfaces very similar to true fly-by-wire. One aspect of F-4 control system I prefer is the artificial feel system. Both speed g-load cause stick pressure similar to the forces felt when the stick is directly connected to control surfaces using an air intake and a bob weight to sense speed and g load. The F-15 CAS has a much simpler electrically powered artificial feel system that doesn't provide anywhere near as much feedback of the F-4. The F-16 sidestick does not have any force feedback. After the Israeli F-15 landed with a missing wing, McDonnell studied the situation to make it possible to retrofit the F-15's control system with automatic adaptation to missing flight surfaces. That could not be accomplished with a traditional mechanical/hydraulic controls system like the F-86. So, it may not be officially recognized as fly-by-wire, but just as other fly-by-wire aircraft, when the CAS is engaged, the computer evaluates the flight inputs, then decides what control surfaces to move, how far to move them, and how fast to move them. The F-15 Flight Control System (f15sim.com) F-15 Longitudinal Control (f15sim.com)

I would buy the F-15C, but I would prefer the F-15A. But I prefer flying aircraft that have no fly-by-wire and no MFDs. The F-15E is a reasonable substitute for an F-15C with the CFTs installed, which performs more like a slatted F-4E due to the extra weight/drag. If RAZBAM would change their mind and let the F-15E fly with the CFTs removed, it would be an excellent substitute for the F-15C.

There is an option that can be enabled on the waypoint that give AI permission to jettison fuel tanks when they are empty. If you enable that option on the first waypoint, they will drop them. Air combat looks a lot more realistic once this option is enabled. The AI will readily shed their drop tanks to fight. I have not tested this with Spitfires, but it has worked on many different aircraft types.

But it looks like it got authorization on my 3rd try after the reboot.

Restarting my PC didn't work for me.

My intention is not requiring mods because there are so many in each mission. But sometimes, after editing the missions, I forget to delete the mod requirements. Sooner or later, someone lets me know and I fix it.

I expect and would be more than happy with an F-104G. But I am hoping they handle the F-104 the same as the F1: multiple variants. I really want an F-104C in a Vietnam configuration, which means it would have the refueling probe and the field-mod RWR.