Kev2go

Also not sure how prevelant ins+gps or egi was circa 2005. I found some photos from a 2008 airshow and this f15c still has the original ins panel. Maybe not all birds had it? https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/McDonnell-Douglas-F-15C-Eagle/1370483 https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/6288723

I'm not sure if the new stick grip was added initially. The 1980s manuals I've seen have msip as having original stick grip like in this photo

For now. F15E may as well be abandonware if the ed razbam dispute is not resolved. Forget about even getting it feature complete out of EA. Right now even basic bug fixes and maintenance aren't even being done on it. There's no guarantee a future patch won't break the jet at some point. So if anything this just leaves an A/G gap left for the eagle as a platform. Having only dumb bombs won't allow f15c do everything a f15e would but the versatility is welcomed. The more versatile an airframe the more enticing it is to a broader audience. Aka more sales.

It also makes sense from to have a module have more versatility. Having a/g even if it's just dumb bombs using ccip/Crrp would still be nice to have. But I'm guessing apg63v1 will have some form of sarmapping which would allow greater usability for dumb bombs If it's documented in dash 34 they are using then I hope to see it simulated.

if A/G capability is in the manual it aught to be modelled. Pretty sure F14A never actually saw use in combat with dumb bombs or zunis either.

im not mistaking anything I am just working under assumption we are getting APG63 v1 and not AESA Apg63 v2, and therefore am expecting JTIDS system. The other 3 lettered sim's F15C manual references theirs as the JTID eagles. The Sit page format is similar to F15E's FDL Sit page.

apparently only squadron with APG63V1 and datalink was the 390th from Idaho. 20 aircraft. https://skytrailer.nl/eagle-squadrons/390th-fighter-squadron/

yeah block 3i being an initial version followed by block 3F as the full "100%" mission capability or something. I just think it would make more sense for an circa 2015 initial IOC F35B to have this software, not a USAF F35A. So like not only does ED admits in Q&A they need to crutch on lockmart F35 simulators as thier main means of source material, it still means they have to use the wrong software suite for a different service variant of the F35.

ive read that the block 2b software is what the USMC F35B became IOC with. F35A reached IOC at a later date with a newer software suite, IF i recall correctly block 3i should be the earliest for an initial USAF service F35A.

agreed. i would of thought this would make sense as an AI asset, or maybe even a Flaming cliffs level aircraft, But a full fidelity? I dont think ED has access to Dash 1 and Dash 34 documentation for a block 2b.

F5E-3 is simply the airframe. You can have F5E-3 airframe with various features. It just wont be accurate for an USAF aggressor model for an F5E3 to have ALR87 RWR and Countermeasures. Only the swiss buybacks in the navy had those circa 2006. The buyback Swiss F5E's that the US navy received must not have been the quad rail variants( most photos of Swiss F5's only have wingtip mounts), because its not in the 2006 natops. Only wingtip sidewinder mounts are considered valid for a US aggressor based on that publication. With the Aim7M on the F4E you mentioned wasn't done simply because the community wanted it. Even if in practice F4 squadrons didn't have Aim7M's issued in stock, IT is at least referenced in some of the later published manuals and is therefore valid. IRRC the F4E 1990 dash 1 has Aim7M in the stores loading section. Can't say the same for the F5E swiss buybacks and the additional aim9 rails. F5N didnt get upgraded with new features until later. A circa 2006 era F5N as per the natops has the exact same avionics as the Swiss F5E models. IF you really want quad rails without having another franken bird as a US operated agressor F5, best compromise would be to just split it into 2 versions. Swiss F5E3 and then F5N, with the only difference being quad rails and the nation its flown by. Not a big deal for ED since they have done so with other modules. There are 2 versions of the P51D , and 3 versions of the P47D both of which have such minor variations.

yeah having some airfields on the channel islands would be nice for v2.0 of normandy

coming back to old posts, we now have CH47F as a EA module. With this being the most modern utility helicopter, it makes me want a Uh60M more especially since there is a Uh60L community mod, and a glass cockpit Uh60 would feel more in line with the technology level the Ch47F offers. And no the Uh60M doesn't actually have FBW, There was some white paper about it but never came to fruition. Actually produced UH60M's in service are still using some form of SCAS system, it looks like the same one as Uh60L based on comparing scas panels between both Uh60L and Uh60M versions.

yeah it appears to be the same Inertial navigator thats referenced in the 2006 natops. So yeah guess this INS was available as early as 1974 for the customers that wanted it.

Yes flaming cliffs 2024 sold as a new product for its price tag should looked like a 2024 game and just be fc3 with dumbed down copy paste mig15, f86, and f5e thrown in. Reflect maybe why it had mixed reviews on steam unlike Fc3, precisely for the sort of reasons i stated above. The reason an individual ff module costs as much as it does is the systems complexity not because the 3d model looks pretty for the time it was developed, compared to a predessor.

The only difference between ff and fc tier should be lower complexity of operations. Ie the lack of clickability of cockpits and simpler avionics systems, not visual quality. If not by the same logic ed should of downgraded mig15, f86 , and f5e 3d models so the ff modules look better then what was included in fc 2024

No I'm complaining about reselling flaming 2024 as a new product and not improving the models, because some are making the excuse it wasn't nessesary because some like the f15c got a very marginal facelift for FC3. Take for example how a10c and ka50 v2 got free visual updates but a10c 2 and ka50 v3 still had further improvements to the 3d model not withstanding additional features. They need to do things more efficiently then because the f5e doesn't look like over 7000 man hours.

I was assuming ED already had such information. I dont see how the ALR87 rwr was even modelled if the development team didn't have a 2006 Natops manual F5E/F/N as reference material back when the module was being developed.

Compare F5E old vs new. That is an actual notabe difference in cockpit detail fidelity even though thats been demonstrated to be a retexture and not a from the scratch remaster, only the exterior 3d model is, so the F15C "update" in comparison looks like a joke. At the time no one really said anything because it was free. But sure because FC3 so called visual retexture FC2024 didn't need any visual updates let alone a "remaster" even though being sold as a new product

Which graphical update? The one where the f15c still looks the same? Ahh yes so that's the reason fc4 didn't need an actual remaster of the aircraft. Again proving the point its a bottom of the barrel cash grab that offers nothing new except a copy paste of some vintage cold war fighters from ff format. like if your trying to appeal to people who dont want full fidelity youd want to at least offer up to date 3d model that looks comperable to a standalone type module and not still like something from 8 to 10 years ago. Anyways like I said. Maybe better luck for fc5

Fc4 wasn't remastered either.... if you purchased it you paid money to have fc3 tier variants of f86,mig15, f5, mig21. Ah well maybe better luck with fc5.

Because the US never employed the F5E in any official combat capacity. IT was only ever adopted and operated as an aggressor aircraft. youd be correct. it is not 100% accurate to any US variant. IF it lacked RWR and CM, it would otherwise be accurate to a USAF aggressor operated F5E3. it makes sense from a pragmatic POV to include RWR and countermeasures, since your F5E would otherwise be really handicapped without those even in cold war multiplayer servers against contemporaries. but i wonder why they didn't Do digital radios or INS at that point it would be a Swiss F5E3 or USN F5N. Maybe it was cutting development cost to omit additional radios and INS. I dont know the real reason but i would say it was not due to lack of documentation. Id be confident enough to assume they had the Natops manual as reference material that covered the F5N. ( given DCS F5E specifically mentions ALR87 rwr and CM combo)

The old f5e even with nation restrictions has more skins available. Maybe more skins will get thrown in in future patches on new f5.

Anvil doesn't require the entire plane to rebuilt, because nothing was said about all of the avionics system needing to be linked and done like the F4. I was only talking about the radar simulation . Regardless of HB proprietary tech, community has been asking for a radar fix from ED since forever. F16 and F/A18 Hornet got radar changes and they are not using any other 3rd parties proprietary tech. When it comes to the new 3d model the Radar scope display is just a green tinge, and aught to be tweaked.

Some of the Navy F5 agressors were fitted with VOR/ILS