Avio

I totally can attest and agree to this roll trim problem, which i had also brought up before years past, more than once. Just totally impossible to trim wings level, like each trim input is too coarse or something, and there is no setting to adjust the trim amount input with each button press. It would definitely be helpful if ED could refine each trim input a lot more. On a busy mission looking out, the self rolling off commanded attitude is a serious minus from an otherwise great product.

Fired off 3 JSOWs but one of them (not sure which) arrived at target waaaaay after the other two had hit their targets. Felt like a minute late. A possible bug?

Just tried marking 5 targets using radar and all 5 AGM-154 hit rather spot-on, but spread in a rather linear fashion. Really no way to set a burst height, and in a circular spread? Or do we wait for further update to this? Pretty cool that these could launch from some 30nm far away.

Just tried laser spotting targets (tanks, fighters on ground) for the JDAMs from about 10nm / 15000 ft. With laser on and targets perfectly at crosshair center and then designate followed by data transfer to JDAMs, all hits were a little beyond each target, as if the laser painted BEHIND the objects rather than on them. Thought laser ranging and spotting used to be spot-on in the past? Is it broken now?

So here's my answer to my own question ... just tried, and yes with laser ranging away while JDAM is flying in, it would be looking at the laser spot, not the previously transferred coordinates.

Okay folks, here's the real meaning of knowledge / skill atrophy ... actually I knew the answers, but been too long away from flying the eagle. So it is all about the "squint angle", best keeping to 2 to 10 degrees, if I got that right. That would mean coming in at 30nm / 20k ft or 20nm / 15k ft, with off-nose angles of 30 to 40 degrees. I just tried that and now all hits were spot on using radar, even for tiny tank targets. Hope that helps someone along.

Needing to clarify -- when a moving target is continuously lased, is the LJDAM 54 guiding on continuously wireless feeding of coordinates from the ship, or is it following the laser spot like any other GBU? If guiding on coordinates, I assume if lasing a stationery target and I may break lock and turn tail after firing?

DLAA and DLSS are the only option so far it seems to be able to get rid of those bothersome shimmerings. I prefer to lock FPS to 60 anyway. MSAA is good, but then shimmering makes a come-back.

Thanks much, folks. I am fully aware about the altitude use via PB17 and such, and had intentionally set up the steerpoint right on the same elevation ramp area where some tanks were deposited. Those tanks were pre-marked as targets waypoints too. When showed up on radar, it was clear the triangular target points just do not coincide with the radar image of target objects, being offset by a little, thus the JDAM missing by that little bit. But when target points were transferred to JDAM, the hit-rate was 100% spot-on all the time. Could it be that from 30nm and at 26,000 ft and offset to 20+ to 30+ off nose the radar paint could not produce the best accuracy? At 30nm or less, would 20,000 ft be a better choice? Anyone tried that?

While 2.9 has been awesome so far using DLAA / DLSS / Quality / 0.6 Sharpening / SSS On, but I noticed the F15E HUD, while mostly still crisp and sharp, shows up the PBL line, low altitude vertical line (on right), and JDAM In-Range / In-Zone bracket to be rather jagged, especially when flying in a bank. Pitch and Attitude lines are both still sharp. Anyone else noticed this? I do not recall there was any such issue previous when using MSAA 4x.

Trying out the JDAM using AGR but found that map image objects' locations seems to show up some inaccuracy. Small targets like tanks most time are likely to be missed by a few meters. Mapping using from 30 nm or less, altitude about 26,000 ft. Using EGI, which I understand do not need PVU updating. Was on NTTR map. Accuracy is perfect when using target Setpoint transfer method. Anyone else encountered this?

That is correct, but only after much intense internal debate, as I understand.

I suppose we would have to let it drift to a stop, as no amount of light touch on the pedals seem to be able to stop it straight. Wonder how the real ones do it. As for new missions, there were occasions when plane was able to stop straight too when slower than 15 knots. Seem to be some observed inconsistency. Edit - As observed so far, problem occured before whether at fast or slow speed taxiing.

Skid at any speed indeed, whenever the static friction is exceeded, like on ice for example. As indicated previously, what doesn’t square is why in some missions, usually in beginning, even full hard braking at much higher speed than that shown in that track, there was no veering off center when jet came to a full stop. Same environment settings, sometimes with full loads of fuel and ordnance even.

My understanding - a skid occurs when static friction is exceeded and kinetic friction takes over, so from wheels surfaces being static relative to ground when rolling properly to when wheels surfaces starting to slide (skid) over ground (kinetic friction region) when in a jam brake for example. The subject problem here happens even when plane already slowed to very slow speed prior to braking, that the friction should be well within the static region, and should not skid. In any case, how should we explain those occasions at start of fresh missions when even at higher speed, full standing on brakes brought the jet to a nice, straight stop with no veering of nose at all? Something just doesn’t quite square here.

Got a short track here -- this one hotstart on runway at Beirut. Brake stop problem right from the start. Couldn't be my pedals issue, because as shown, the initial brake slowing was perfectly smooth and straight. It was only the final moment when the plane came to a stop that the nose just had to swivel to one side, sometimes by quite some degrees left or right, seemingly randomly. Yet at other times, braking was smooth and straight with no problem. Really usual. Hope this could be looked into. F15E Syria.trk

In these scenarios, how really useful is the onboard A2G radar? Fix structures locations would have been known ahead, but random mobile threats would be too small to be spotted unless from way near, or with copious help from FAC. Has the AG radar outlived its heydays? The TPOD on the other hand is almost always helpful, for final refinement in aiming.

I know that, but i prefer as it is, as i fly others too, like the A10. Actually i meant in the real jet, that tactile feel would have been quite welcomed i believe.

Balanced, zero wind, full brakes. Not sure is it a Sinai problem. Will see if it still happens at other maps, if i fly them.

Totally agree it is about the sweetest handling module in the air or on the ground …. Until that last second stopping weirdness, as seen in the longer track i posted earlier. Not a deal-breaker for sure, but would be nice if that is fixed.

Roger that Rudel, thanks.

I read the whole of Smallwood, and all was good and inspiring. But the hypo case here refers more to the “what if” of a modern armed conflict, perhaps against a nearly worthy foe, not a battle from decades ago against lesser armed and trained combatants. How would the scene unfold? Thought it would make for an interesting discussion among us armchair military aviators, certainly not about macho bravado. Brings to mind too, about the debate over the expenditure over the new EX eagles.

Thanks for confirming that both PC1 and 2 should be 3000. That helps !

Maybe you could help advise what would be right?

Okay, so this is all hypothetical. Should there be a shooting war (better not !!), what's the real odds that the F15E would get the job done and prevail? It's at its best as a bomb truck, but the battle field is rarely cooperative, with thick air defenses everywhere that even SEADs cannot clear up enough. Will the eagles have to jettison often and turn tail and RTB empty handed? Are most assigned missions pre-assigned targets already? And if mission is to hunt for targets of opportunity, I could envision the eagles would have to loiter and hold somewhere while looking for the needles in the haystack via the radar and TPOD, like some 15 or 20 nm away in order to see well enough. That's only an arm's length from some harm, all the while lugging bags of heavy stuff. Or it just have to hang around and wait for some FAC feeds to come through, preferably with precise coordinates served up? Opinions, anyone?