SinusoidDelta

In the Raytheon Cup 2013 video you can clearly see him maneuvering and the altimeter reading 50k ft around 1:20. http://m.military.com/video/aircraft/jet-fighters/f-15-eagle-2013-raytheon-trophy-video/3547422373001/

In regards to the aircrafts handling, I haven't see any technical details describing the issue. In my experience the issue exists in the subsonic regime as well and is not exclusive to supersonic flight making it somewhat of a misnomer. 'm going to put together a summary and thread dedicated to analyzing this problem but it will take a few days to compile all the data.

That video is chock full of extremely useful performance figures. He pulls 5G at 41k at M1.5. He does bleed speed off rapidly though.

The eagle flight model has issues. You could say it is 'under modeled' but not deliberately. It is actually an incredible achievement on the part of Belsimtek and ED that we have a flight model capable of issues like transonic roll off. It should also be considered the F-15C FM actually is over modeled in some respects. No, I'm not an eagle driver IRL but the -1 is publicly available. The most frustrating thing on this forum in general are complaints about underperforming this and overperforming that but it's just hearsay. Show us your data, get technical, support your arguments, cite references, post tracks. You might just find the F-15C is *over-performing* in some areas! Also, I haven't seen a post actually detailing the TRO problem or where it even earned that moniker. Yet everyone knows it's a problem. There is hardly any technical discussion here overall aside from the wonderful research put together by IASGATG regarding missile performance. Threads quickly devolve into never ending arguments that accomplish absolutely nothing aside from further dividing the community.

I personally would love to see MP mission where staying alive offers an actual tactical advantage. I'd love if missions used more of the real estate available so that reaching a forward operating base would be critical. Make it require forethought to launch out of home base and engage at bullseye. I'm sure there's more than one way to do it. It's frustrating when we have amazing things like landing gear and fuel consumption modeled but they have very little value in MP.

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. FFB was planned to be implemented in the F-15C AFM. (See thread below) http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122788 There may be some parameters in the FM config to investigate.

I'm only familiar with F-15 flight control system which has direct hydro mechanical linkage to the control surfaces. The system uses a linear rate spring and jack screws to provide the same aircraft response regardless of airspeed. If the AFCM were perfect, the linear rate spring would be the only opposing force the pilot feels. No FFB stick I know of is capable of simulating the F-15's spring rate which is something like 30 lbs. full aft. You'd be better off using a real spring than a virtual one. I'd imagine the stick would need anchored into the floor. Flying the Eagle would become a decent workout. ;)

This is something I'm curious about as well for the F-15C. What aircraft(s) are you referring to?

I (TwinScroll) will be available Saturday or Sunday.

TwinScroll Lone Wolf USA F-15C

In hindsight I agree, they are dissimilar. I didn't know the roll rate in DCS was 200dps. I actually have read the research on uncommanded roll and departure in the F-15, quite extensively. The Bitburg Roll had multiple contributing factors. These factors result in lateral asymmetries, producing transient yaw acceleration, yaw and wing rock. This is amplified with low fuel and carrying stores. In this sense I think the AFM issue is quite similar. As you're aware, AFCS is not modeled properly in the AFM. CAS off flight is wildly inaccurate compared to the real data I've seen. I'm not a test pilot :( I'm just an engineer who looks for problems to solve, sometimes I end up creating them:lol: I did come up with a solution for data logging (Not involving Tacview). That being said, there is a plethora of useful empirical data, it only needs sorted through and correlated to DCS flight test data. I think the FM is very, very good. It just needs refinement and I'm excited for future developments. Furthermore, most people don't realize the -1 isn't the only manual. ;)

Perhaps the source is inaccurate but here's where I got that information: http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=a43_1429013746 " Unknown to NATO, Yugoslav air defenses operators had found they could detect F-117s with their obsolete Soviet radars after some modifications. In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed in an interview suggested that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, allowing them to detect the aircraft when the wheel well or bomb bay doors were open. In addition, the Serbs had also intercepted and deciphered some NATO communications, and thus were able to deploy their anti-air batteries at positions best suited to intercept NATO planes. On March 27, 1999, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade of the Army of Yugoslavia , under the command of Colonel Dani , downed F-117 Air Force serial number 82-0806 , callsign "Vega 31". The Army of Yugoslavia unit was equipped with a Yugoslav version of the Soviet Isayev S-125 "Neva" missile system ( NATO reporting name , SA-3 "Goa" ). At about 8:15 pm local time, with a range of about 8 miles (13 km) several missiles were launched. According to Sergeant Dragan Matić, who was identified in 2009 as the soldier who fired the missiles, they detected the F-117 at a range of about 50 to 60 kilometres (31 to 37 mi), operating their equipment for no more than 17 seconds to avoid being locked on to by NATO anti-air suppression. According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature. " - See more at: http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=a43_1429013746#sthash.Sd3vlqHz.dpuf

Could you expand on the meaning of referenced post?

Think of the RWR as a radar detector like the ones we use to save us from speeding tickets. :)

I remember reading the F-117 had an RCS the size of a bird and B-2 has an RCS the size of a marble. The only F-117 shot down was allegedly due Serbians using long wave radar to detect when the bomb bay doors opened. I am curious how detailed the RCS of aircraft is modeled in the game. Perhaps modeling a real life stealth technology demonstrator like the F-117 help create a better radar model.

I think the issue is a misunderstanding of what corner speed is; it is not a static airspeed. Saying "maximum energy point" is misleading with regards to EM theory as the energy height actually dips negative at corner. It is an intersection that where turn rate goes to maximum and turn radius goes to minimum on a constant altitude path. If you would look at the document I referenced you would see a concise explanation using actual F-15 performance data. I'm not implying this data will match DCS performance data. The theory needs to be understood first.

See page 63 of the below document. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA320211

Interesting. It looks like the same 3D model that's available for purchase on cgtrader and turbosquid.

Is that a Milviz model?

TwinScroll here, (F-15C) I will be available on the 11th. This worked out in my favor actually as I couldn't attend the previous date.

I'm just speculating from a systems modeling point of view. The F-117 was a relaxed static stability aircraft and not flyable without the extremely resilient FBW system that was developed. I think AOA was limited to 17deg, it's ceiling was like 25,000 ft. @ Mach 0.8 and it was G-limited to +3/-1 G. I suppose a flight envelope that small would be easy to model but outside of that envelope it would almost be guess work.

Regardless of being classified, CFD analysis of the F-117 would be a nightmare in addition to modeling the flight control system. It's a jet that did not want to fly. I'd rather have a bomber like the B1

So should pulling 80G's to dodge my slammers :music_whistling:

Who needs a DCS F-117 when we already have this masterpiece?;)

It is termed "semi" because the flight control system is triple redundant using mechanical linkage and stick force input. Should the hydromechanical system fail the control surfaces can still be deflected by the CAS system alone and vice versa. I still maintain the augmentation system itself is far different in the A/B/C/D vs E models in that it is digital and supplied by Lear/BAE Astronics.