MikeMikeJuliet

All I hear here sounds great. I'm not sure if this would be the right thread to say, but I have a couple of... general notes I guess. I have not gone through all the material on dcs, so I might be all wrong here, but: Flightsims are a lot about terms, procedures, control schemes, endless forum posts an, sometimes, over-helpful forum members. Picture coming to this as the total newbie. The person starting the whole ordeal would, in my opinion, use a foolproof, super easy to find place to find information relevant to the skill level of the user. We have a bunch of awesome tutorials and threads full of info, but you need an inherent knowledge where to look or what to look... and many forum posts get flooded really badly at times. Looking into good tutorials on dcs on youtube, many of them are either poorly done, aren't really tutorials but studies (bunyap's videos for example), or are just difficult to find in general. I also bet some people would like unambigous explanations on several aircraft parts and systems and what to do with the, without going into so much detail as to drown the beginners interest right at the start. Many people are interested in the awesomeness that is air combat, but that does not mean they are ready or willing to sit in front of the screen for hours on end, when you realky don't need to, considering the Su25T and the FC3 aircraft. When it comes to asking help on the forums, you mostly get incomplete information, way too long technical explanations or other less helpful comments... we mean well, but we deliver poorly. I say 'we' because I'm guilty of the same habits as well. I've wanted to do a whole lot of DCS and Warthunder tutorial videos, but I have way too little continuous spare time for that. Now feel free to disagree with me. This is only my own observation on the subject. Count it as a contribution if you found it at all useful. EDIT: sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I'm currently typing on my tablet. Damn virtual keyboards. Cheers: MikeMikeJuliet

That is some impressive work. I assume this dlc is coming to steam at some point as well. Does the creator / ED have any estimations if this will be there approximately the same time it is available to the DCS standalone? Or how much time it takes to get it on steam?

Considering the time it takes for the MiG to run empty... from what I understand the afterburner pretty much empties the tanks "before you can blink" so to speak. Now, I've got no numbers here at the moment, but compared to the MiG-29, I'd assume the time is around the same, probably quite a lot shorter. If I remember correctly, a full fuel load (no external tanks) in the 29 takes around 5-10 minutes on full AB to empty to Bingo-fuel. Now again, I know I'm not that specific in here, but let's say the time is counted in minutes, not tens of minutes. I've a couple of people I know who had info on the MiG-21 as they've worked with the plane, and procedure was, that landing was usually done close to minimum fuel. Of course in DCS you don't need to consider the fatigue the airframe gains over multiple take-off - landing -cycles, so I wouldn't be too worried. If you want to follow the correct procedure you surely won't be doing anything wrong.

No problem. Glad I could be of help

I had this same problem way back before 1.5, and a bunch told me it was a user error for sure (steam forums, I didn't post here at the time). I did quite a lot of testing on the topic for a few days, and I believe the problem is, that the tutorials use "spacebar" as the button to continue the text in the tutorial. For some reason this bugs for some users in these 3 missions. In other words, you are not doing anything wrong. The fix is not complicated: give the "fire weapon" key a second keybind (I used numpad comma). Use this new keybind in the tutorial missions you have trouble with. You can also take the KMGUs for example to a free-flight and try the default keybind (that is: "spacebar") and it should work just fine. The problem is in the three tutorial missions. Now for those who have not encountered this problem, consider yourselves lucky. As I tested things out it seemed that in the steam forums only a couple of people had run into the same issue. Just a random bug that manifests itself only rarely. If the fix doesn't work, give me a shout and I'll see if I can try to figure it out with ya.

That's good to know. I believe the radar-altimeter was left out because there is no critical need for it when it comes to the design of the F-15. As we all know, the F-15 is an air superiority fighter and thus designed to fight high, not in mountain passes. If compared to the russian counterparts, that might be a difference in design philosophy. The russian planes seem to be designed more as jacks-of-all-trades in this regard. I'd like to know an answer to this too :D

I stand corrected. Anyway, I felt it easier to fly final with a little less alpha, otherwise my flare seems to give me too slow speeds at touchdown. Perhaps I flare just a little bit too much. Does the manual say anything about max alpha at landing, btw?

From what I've found, a good plan is to keep the flight path marker over threshold at 3 degrees decent, and keep a good speed crossreferencing the AOA-indicator on the hud. About 18-20 degrees of alpha seems to be good, and flare for landing for a touchdown at 22 degrees alpha. As the AOA takes weight into consideration, you only need to keep the proper alpha and your speed is good regardless of loadout... as long as you are with full flaps.

This might be a tad bit off, but I've noticed that the effects of the attitude mode are hard to notice at first... but once you try air-to-air-refueling or formation flying you can easily notice the difference between not having the AP on and having it on attitude. Sort of like an autotrim but not quite. At least it smooths my close formation flying a lot.

Thank you for the answer, that was very helpful. The DCS world manual seemed a bit ambiguous on that part. One additional question to clarify: If stage two has, say, 3 missions with ranges (A) 0-49, (B) 50-50 and © 51-100. I advance to this from stage 1. The first mission to play from stage 2 after the advancement would be C. Now if I complete level C with the score of 50, does that give me level B next? I'm assuming so, as the manual said that score 50 keeps you on the same stage (not the same level necessarily). Cheers. EDIT: I actually tested this just a minute ago with a quick mission setup, and turns out it behaves exactly as I thought. Interesting. On a side note, I assume campaigns can't be built for multiplayer without external scriptin..? I'd be interested in creating co-op campaigns.

Sorry, I'm not here for answers, but rather more questions. Does anyone know Exactly how the Campaign builder works? I get the fact that you can create stages in the campaign. And that you stay in the stage if you score 50 in the mission, regress a stage if you score less, and advance a stage if you score more. But what does the number range on the missions do then? You have to keep it from 0 to 100, so that at least one mission in each stage points to every number in between... but... what do they do? I get that if the range is the same for multiple missions in a stage the campaign should randomly select which one you play. But how do I advance the missions in a single stage? Are those numbers representing the play order? I tested by giving mission 1 a range of 0 to 1, and mission 2 the range from 1 to 100. I started the campaign and it loaded mission 2. So does it start with a mission with the range that includes number 50? If so, does that mean, that if I have 3 stages and my starting stage is stage number 2. And I have 2 missions in stages 1 and 3, with ranges 0-50 and 50-100... If I finish a mission on stage 2 with less than 50 points, does that mean it takes me to the mission in stage 1, that has the range 0-50? And if I finish a mission in stage 2 with more than 50 points, does it take me to stage 3 and give me the mission with the range 50-100? Anyone have a clue? I'm trying to test this shortly, but if someone has deeper knowledge on this, please share. Regards.

I've built a TARGET script file for the HOTAS Warthog that keeps the radar on. That still doesn't fix the problem of the radar resetting (and thus losing the target), but I feel it makes handling of the aircraft systems a bit better. With the script I actually have a switch to control if the radar should be on or off. Also, feels nice to actually flick a switch to get the radar on and off. Ahh. :D

Also cycling the ECM on and off periodically (say, 15 second intervals?) makes you an impossible target to shoot in BVR before radar burnthrough. I'd like to see a little more subtle ECM modes. The standard noise is just way too simple for a simulation of this caliber (especially when considering the more fully modeled aircraft).

I agree on both, although they aren't F-15C specific. Improved ATC would help all the players independent of the aircraft they operate... but that is for another thread. I haven't put much attention to the aircraft lighting, I have to admit. Is that the case in the F-15C only or is it a common lighting issue across the whole sim? Thanks for the replies, btw.

Hello to all, In the F-15C there are 2 critical oversights, that both make it cumbersome to operate the plane, and (in the virtual environment) are critical to flight safety when dealing with multiple aircraft operating in close proximity. 1: Altimeter pressure setting. You cannot change the pressure setting at all. This in my opinion is an oversight by the developers. In different stages of flight a different pressure setting is needed (take-off airfield's QNH or QFE setting, possible force-QNH in operation area, QNE for flight level flying and finally landing airfield's QNH or QFE). IF you are not using the same pressure setting with the other aircraft operating in the same area you risk collision, especially IFR. I do believe this is easily fixed by the talented devs at Belsimtek and does probably require a whole 2 lines of code. 2: Indication for which ILS you are on. If you happen to fly to any other airfield than the preplanned one, all you are doing is guesswork and approximation to know which ILS you are homing into. Sometimes flying a route the NAV system automatically tunes to the wrong ILS even if it was preplanned. Now if I wasn't aware of the distance I planned in between my last route waypoint and the airfield, I would have no clue if I was landing to the right place. That said think about a mission with multiple aircraft and add in a couple of guys headed to the wrong field... I smell collision potential again. AND an annoyance when you land somewhere you didn't inted. Again I believe this would be rather easily implemented. A live frequency readout, OR a HUD symbol to show the airfield number (as in the Su-25T for example). It might not be 100% accurate HUD symbology compared to the real plane, but it would make it a million times more reasonable to navigate with the aircraft. I know the FC3 aircraft are supposed to be simple, sort of "entry level" vehicles to the sim, and that is what I'm getting at here. If we are missing critical items the simulation is too simple and may cause crossings with the more realistic simulations an frustrate pilots on both sides. All this is said with the utmost respect toward the devs. The F-15C is way better than it was when I started playing Lock On around 9 years ago, and I wish we can all enjoy a complete aircraft that is easy to get started with, but still provides sufficient enough system modeling to go together with the rest of DCS World. We could go on and on with features missing and all that, but I feel most of them are just luxury and convenience (taking into account the level of simulation we are expecting here). Sure I'd like TACANs and frequencies and further control over the weapon system and a usable Course knob on the HSI... but the two above I feel are much, much more important (even if they are so small things). Enough babble from my end. I hope to see some fixes in the future. Regards! EDIT: If you fly in the Caucasus map for an ILS on Tbilisi-Lochini or Vaziani, there is a serious chance to land on the wrong airfield if you don't know which ILS you are on, because the airfields are very close to eachother and have almost identical runway directions.

Is there any way to implement these into the in-game kneeboard? External data sources (while super useful) will be unavailable when virtual reality kicks in later, so it would be preferable to have all necessary information usable. That, and an indication for the ILS you are using should indeed be there. That would not make the simulation more complex in the slightest and would save all F-15 simmers a lot of time and effort.

I'm sure the whole thing is an oversight backing propably to the times of the original LOMAC... Every A/C has to have an ability to change the pressure setting. Think about trying to do IFR collision avoidance when multiple players are approaching an airfield... the ones without the ability to change the setting pose a serious collision risk to every other A/C out there. ... also it would really be a matter of minutes for Belsimtek to add the controls, I wager.