Raven (Elysian Angel)

Obviously it isn't, but I would want it to be included into the module for the very simple reason that the capability (and the wiring) was present. Besides, this is DCS so we are not constrained by RL considerations. I have never carried Zuni rockets on my DCS F-14 but I am happy the capability is there for those who choose to use it - as the RL bird was cleared and able to carry and use them.

Wags, I think it was you who put the tag on this thread... Thanks but that's not the point at all. I know the era you plan to model the F-15C after since I read the FAQ. My question was if there will be a proper way to model an early '90s bird, and how it differs from that era. To my understanding the cockpit stayed exactly the same (apparently RL pilots complained about that).

I loved the LOMAC F-15C campaign! The good thing is now that we will be able to edit in a FF Eagle into the FC3 campaign and fly it again

I use VR daily without issues in DCS, unless the movement of what I see doesn't correspond with the movement my head makes. If DCS freezes for example so there's a stationary image in my view that follows me around when I turn my head, my skin turns green indeed. Fairy nuff, and I'm happy for you that you can use it without problems.

It's also about basic functionality, such as the ability to give direct commands to Wingman 4, which is present in FC3 but not in full-fidelity modules.

Indeed, as they were quite important in that era. If I remember correctly, it was a Dutch AFB the F-15Cs who intercepted the pilot-less MiG-23 took off from, that eventually ended up crashing in Belgium.

I'm sure people are referring to the amount of depth the modules have. Few will refute the F-18 and F-16 being far less developed than the A-10C for example.

We all know politics vastly outweigh operational requirements (and frankly common sense too) when it comes to military procurements. Yes they can hire fewer map developers but they are also a company that needs to make money to survive. It's a very sad affair and it hurts ED in at least some capacity as well - including reputation.

There is 1 major difference here: those "sims" were built around that 1 aircraft and thus had to exist in an environment that made sense. At the moment at least, that is not the case for DCS. One can make an argument for this not even being the case for 4th gen, let alone 5th. Then again, NL alluded to the introduction of Fat Amy into DCS making a lot of other things possible, so I'll reserve full judgement until I see that realised. But we as customers have every right to be - extremely - sceptical and to not believe certain claims that are now made by ED. Yes I did have a lot of fun with say "F-22 Air Dominance Fighter" by DID and its successor "Total Air War" because they somehow managed to make a believable representation of low-observability (which for example EIDOS' "Joint Strike Fighter" failed miserably at) and they represented the cockpit and human-machine-interface reasonably well. But you can't exactly call taking out 12 Ethiopian Su-35s every single sortie even remotely realistic. DCS has set very different standards over the years, even though certain aspects of those '90s sims were well ahead of where DCS is even now. ED repeats ad nauseum that aircraft teams can't and won't work on maps, and while that is very understandable, those very aircraft teams can also be put to work on the Yak-52 I'd think and finally finish it...

I never heard a report about an F-14 carrying Zuni rockets into combat. Yet according to Heatblur it was able (and cleared) to do so, so I’m happy we at least have the ability to use them in DCS if we so desire.

Sure but that’s not the point, surely? If the aircraft as used in the USAF could do it, we should be able to in DCS. It simply increases the value of the module.

Yes, CCIP and CCRP with Mk80-series should be possible…

Okay I’ll call it: the DCS “2026 and beyond” video will announce a full fidelity “DCS: TR-3B”! Mark my words!

Yes and we (Belgium) recently got our first F-35A, which is Block 4. So Block 2B will be a far cry from operational birds, but still… Blegh…

Yeah I'm fine with MSIP II really. An F-15A would have been nice too but given the general audience in DCS the -C makes much more sense. And it’s not FBW so I’m happy. ED have stated they have no intention to bring the AIM-120A to DCS, so we’ll have to do with 2x AIM-9M, 2x -120B and 4 -7M(H) for early ‘90s CAPs over Iraq. I don’t understand why the AIM-7P was mentioned in the FAQ since that’s a Navy-only weapon as far as I know.

I doubt that: there’s a core audience that’s been around a while who are very vocally opposed to this module. There are sources that claim the startup is so automated it’s pretty much just pushing the start-button and the aircraft takes care of the rest. Just look at the cockpit: there’s not much there in terms of buttons and switches.

I agree with you, but let’s not dirty this subforum with that. The question still stands though: I heard that at some point the cockpit was updated but that was very late in its career (so probably later than mid-2000s. So if the difference is just in software (and thus weapon support), I’m a happy bunny: I want to at least be able to reliably pretend to be in a 1991-1994 Eagle

Hello, As far as I understand, MSIP II F-15Cs were already around in the mid-‘80s - though few of them, and they were deployed to Desert Storm as well. Can someone clarify how a ‘80s MSIP II bird differs from a mid-2000s one? Is it just weapons and JHMCS and datalink, or something else as well? Will we be reliably be able to turn off modern features in order to simulate a late ‘80s - early ‘90s F-15C? Thanks!

Did you read the FAQ? I’m not interested in it at all. I have no doubt it will appeal to a lot of people (it’s been proven there’s a large audience for the “latest and greatest shiny toy”) - primarily the younger audience I imagine.

I find this extremely puzzling as well

Get yourself a proper browser then Full fidelity F-15C made my day! But what is that other thing? KF-21? And more importantly: why? DCS is already too much of an incoherent mix, so why make it even worse?

This made me giggle

Last year we got a very comprehensive '2024 and beyond' newsletter on January 5th if I remember correctly. So a lot sooner than this year

I'll give you one, because I can't be bothered turning this into a virtual pissing contest: PoE2. In any case, that's not the point of what I was saying. The point was, that it depends on the skill of the programmer how well Vulkan will work and how much (if any) performance advantage it gives over a competing API. And since ED is taking their merry time, I see that as a good sign.

Yes, or used to be - if you can believe the drama on Discord. He's the one who wrote the radar code for the Mirage 2000 and F-15E.