doedkoett

I don´t know what you're expecting to see? If you have a steerpoint that should appear as a circle. If you want it displayed as a triangle (target waypoint) it must be named #T in the mission editor. If it is the target themselves you want to be able to see on the radar, then you probably should create patchmaps using the highest resolution. Note that you will have to have the target at either side of the nose to create a patchmap. To create a patchmap, press the OSB that says "TGT" in your pictures above, until it says "MAP", then toggle the various resolutions with the center button in the bottom row, the one that says ".67". If the marker turns into a rectangle, place it over the area you want to map. If the rectangle is X:ed, try selecting another patch map size or turn to take the target a little bit more offset from the nose. You´d probably have to be at the highest resolution (0.67 miles) to see the aircraft on the tarmac clearly, and to be able to use that you have to be fairly close. Cant tell you the distance, but 80 miles is way too far, and 40 too, I think. Gotta have more time in the cockpit to know that by heart.

Well, a "Heavily modified F-15B" used to sell the F-15E concept is a prototype/demo aircraft in my book. I meant what you said in my post. I am sorry if I was not clear enough.

In this case it´s Razbam. You can blame Razbam for a lot of things, but not the Su-25T or the Black Shark. I am sure some modder will discover how to mod the SE to carry the macho configurations depicted above. At least the the livery package is out, so you can create the wrap around euro I lizard scheme used by the prototype if you wanted to.

That's the Strike Eagle demonstrator/prototype. The Razbam module will be representative of the operational F-15E. What they loaded on the prototype and what is authorised on the operational aircraft are two different things, and I am afraid that however cool the load in the pics above is, it is not representative of an operational Strike Eagle.

I think most of them are supposed to be empty. The E-model is more dependent on display menus and sub-menus and the up front control panel, that eliminates separate panels for stuff like radios, TACAN, navigation etc. Some systems are also only accessible from the back cockpit, like countermeasures programming.

If both sims are correct, shouldn’t they both use the same ”Betty” aka Leslie Shook? Or did the voice change through the years? edit: Apprently the F-15 used another voice actress, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they used Leslie for the E, since it is newer than the Hornet, which she did the voice messages for, and I think the voice sounds the same)

You know, the model already in the game isn´t that bad, so you can do a wallpaper with an F-15E yourself, any time you want. If you're happy with the light, clouds etc, just save the mission and swap out the AI F-15E for the new one later, when it´s out. Here's an image I made earlier, as an example.

The plattforms under static objects, Sea Shelf Objects, are indestructable. I am pretty certain the I have successfully destroyed them on earlier occations. I have tried 4 x 2000 lbs bombs and "explode unit" - nothing happens, not even a percentage of damage is displayed. The old, ugly plattform is destructible, so that is a back up solution for the mission I am making, but not an ideal one. Bomb test oil rig.trk

The DCS version will probably look close to 100% like the real thing, as it looked at a certain point in time. There are scans of cockpit schematics available online (like here: https://www.f15sim.com/misc.html), as well as a plethora of photos. Some systems (like nuclear consent-switches, crypto key switches) will probably have no function, others will, like lights (cockpit/external), volume control, starter switches etc. Functions like terrain following radar will be added during EA, so they won´t work at launch. Regarding interaction, apart from HOTAS, main interaction with the aircraft appears to be like on the Hornet, through the use of the MFD's and the UFC, so that's probably what you will want to map to your physical controls.

Let's hope the usual "two weeks" is a lot sooner than december then!

If the Litening II is complete, it seems like a silly thing to do, to hold it back just to push it in to some gimmicky real-world-inspired update scheme. I totally get why that can make people dissatisfied. We haven't even got a release date yet, so everything is very sketchy at this point. If this is indeed the year of the Strike Eagle, it would be nice if we could play with it for most part of the year and not only the week between x-mas and new year...

So what do you want me to say then? Those weapons are clearly coming since they are important parts of the F-15E, but my guess is as good as yours. But if you want to know what I think, I think they will appear sometime after the release in to early access but before the first "CTU" because they are more important for the module and its users than Sniper pods and JHCMS. I have seen no indication when those CTU´s will be delivered in relation to the release in to EA, it could be a few months, or two years away. It doesn't even say that those CTU´s are a part of EA. Look, mr Serious, nobody here knows anything. We´re only guessing and hoping.

Alphabetic order?

I don´t think you should overthink the roadmap. It´s a roadmap showing what Razbam intends to deliver, and in what order. Having the real jet being able to handle something in 2005 doesn't help the coders at Razbam in any way. They still have to put in the job to make it work in the sim.

”Just like the fact that I wrote - supposedly - that maneuvering issues were not taken into account when designing the F-15? show me?” To my post regarding John Boyds Energy-Maneuverability theory you answered: ”I don't want the same thing over and over again... what was the point of creating the F-15, F-16, A-10? After all, the F-15 does everything, doesn't it? Somehow, however, someone decided that next to the F-15, an agile fighter was needed. The programs from which the F-15 and F-16 grew basically ran in parallel. So I ask the question - WHY??” So I interpreted the quote as you meant that the F-15 was not designed to be agile, which it clearly was. Don’t know why the A-10 was included there, surely you don’t mean its a more agile dogfighter than the F-15? I don’t get why you wish to belittle the F-15 so much? It was a marvel when it came, and 50 years later it is still a fantastic airplane. It was a fantastic dogfighter and BVR-fighter when it came, long range, a fighter pilots dream, and it only got better from there. But all that glamour came at a cost, that’s why the F-16 exists. Not because the F-15 was bad at anything, it was just too good. It was and is the F-16 that is limited in comparison.

I am merely combining the argument that the F-15 is not designed for maneuvering combat since most kills have been with bvr missiles, with the argument that the F-15 was designed for downing soviet bombers. By that logic most of the BVR-kills must have been soviet bombers then? Because if it wasn’t, then, by the same logic, it could not have been built for that role. You keep saying BVR combat does not require maneuverability. I don’t know your background, maybe you’re a seasoned fighter pilot, and I am making a fool out of my self here, but the little I know about BVR combat against other fighters is that it sure requires a great deal of maneuverability. Turning sharply at super sonic speeds is not something you do with high wing loading-low G airframes. Keeping that speed up through those maneuvers is also something that demands careful design. It’s not all engine power you know. The same features that make an airframe maneuverable in the high speed regime makes it maneuveable also at lower speeds. At least that is my experience from reading litterature, listening to podcasts, reading about modern fighter design, talking to fighter pilots and aircraft designers and not least from having several hours in Gripen C and E simulators with (I presume) skilled instructors at Saab in Linköping. But as I said, you might be an instructor at Nellis for all I know, and I just made a fool out of my self here.

All those Sparrow (and, I guess, AMRAAM) kills, were they against non-maneuvering strategic bombers?

But the F-15 is not a one trick pony designed only to face slow soviet bombers, right?

No, they aren't. They are just designed to a different philosophy. It´s like saying the Hornet is superior to the F-16 since the latter has an AoA-limit and the former not.

The thing left out of this discussion so far is the need for maneuverability in a BVR scenario - the energy management thing. It is easy to think that energy management and high G turns are for getting gun solutions only, but real BVR combat incorporates a bit of supersonic turning. Which is one important reason why more modern aircraft have so called relaxed static stability - it makes them more maneuverable and more aerodynamic in the supersonic regime too, not just for close range dogfights. So Nahen has a point saying the F-15 was optimised for BVR, but loses it again when claiming maneuverability was not a design criteria. Maneuverability was absolute a design criteria, else it would have looked like the interceptor designs of the 50's, like the Rapier or Avro Arrow. They were fast, but required a continent to turn. Just like the Mig-25.

Why bring the A-10 in to this, it has a completely different mission and requirements, while the F-16 and the F-15 at least share some of the requirements. The answer to the "why" is simply cost. The F-15 was designed to beat anything out there, from Mig-21 to Mig-25. Twin engines and a highly advanced radar made it very expensive however. The F-16 was envisioned as a cheap, short range point defence fighter with the bare minimum in the sensor department that could augment the F-15 with sheer numbers. But you know this already. I don't know why you want us to believe the F-15 was designed as just an interceptor and the agility of the aircraft was somehow just a happy accident.

Wasn't it the "Energy-Maneuverability theory" by John Boyd and Thomas P Christie that laid the foundation for the design of both the F-15 and the F-16? The lack of maneuverability of the USAF aircraft compared to the soviet types used by North Vietnam forced a complete re-think of the A2A arena for the USAF. At least that is the history as I have understood it. Not trying to argument against Draconus, just adding to his comment.

I am counting on there being two different controller setups for pilot and "wizzo", so I am thinking of being boring and just use the pilot hotas setup applied to my physical setup (a warthog stick and virpil throttle) and just first add the WSO specific to free buttons then second, if needed, replace "nice-to-have" pilot stuff like airbrake, NWS and stuff like that. But I have the impression that most of the buttons on the wso-sticks are doing the same things as is already present on the pilot HOTAS.

I think the question is incorrect. What is interesting here is if the F-15E, the real a/c, and the module, has a Q-feel system. A system that artificially recreates the feel of the aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces, so that the pilot can feel the speed in the stick, so to say. A FFB stick could replicate this, creating more resistance the faster you go. FBW is in it self not necessarily a reason not to have such a feedback system. While the FCS might pamper you by limiting the G´s available at any given time, "feeling" the speed on the control surfaces add information of the state of the aircraft to the pilot in an intuitive way. Now, this system is of course superfluous on an a/c with a force sensing stick. There you invert the the whole thing, making the a/c react to pilot force instead of the other way. I think that the F-15 has an artificial feedback system, but I am not sure. As far as I could find, the Hornet does not.

The F-15C and D´s in IDF are sometimes equipped with CFT´s and bombs so they look like F-15E´s. Here´s one with JDAM, which I count as a guided weapon. I am no expert on the F-15, just saw some pics of gray IDF Eagles with a lot of bombs a while ago and first thought they had painted their F-15I's gray.