av8orDave

Yeah, I’m not referring to the right page and yeah I know it goes to TEWS first. I’m talking even the left page takes a bunch of presses and is still inconsistent. Is this to say it works fine on first press for you?

Is anyone else having trouble getting this to work? When I try to use the castle switch to scroll through MFD pages by clicking that direction, it is super inconsistent. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes I have to click about 5 times to get it to work. I’m setting up the pages to scroll in the order I’d like, then making the MFD I’d like to switch the sensor of interest, then castling that direction, but it only works occasionally. Any insight?

Strikeeagle; Dude, fantastic answer. Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. I learned a few things today.

A question about the engines in the real world: - I read an article that there are plans to start phasing out F-15Es with the -220 engines first. - Do squadrons operate a mix of -220 and -229 engines within a squadron? - If not, which squadrons have which engines? I did find an article that said the 494th and 492nd have exclusively -229s. - Is there a way to tell the difference visually between the -220 and -229? Thanks!

My opinion: This is by far the easiest of the DCS jets to land. It is stable, responds in a reasonable time to power changes, is easy to trim to the desired AoA, has predictable handling on the ground, and has pretty good braking (both aero and mechanical). I will add that it also has the most realistic "feel" to landing a real aircraft.

Ok, makes sense. Is there a way to get the JTAC in Liberation to use smoke instead of laser? Doesn't seem like you can "ask" them to use one mark-type vs another. I'm guessing in mission editor somewhere?

Is there any way to work with a JTAC yet? For example, in a Liberation mission, if you use the default JTAC, he gives you a 9-line consisting of MGRS coordinates and a laser spot. Since we don’t yet have MGRS entering capabilities, is there a laser spot track function on the TPOD or anything? Are we out of luck until a bit further into development? Thanks all

An alternate perspective would be: - The E has three MFDs, one of which has a useful moving map - I’ve yet to experience a CTD despite continuous use of the HRM mapping mode. Lucky I guess. - The E has the AMRAAM. - The E has a NAVFLIR that displays on the HUD. - The E has a fairly reliable and sophisticated IFF, along with NCTR.

Another interesting point that was brought up on Steve Davies’s podcast with the F-15E pilot (Stinger) is that the classic “rate / radius” conversations have basically been superseded in the era of helmet-cued weapons, and that the conversation is now getting the aircraft into weapons parameters as quickly as possible and keeping it there. It’s a very different era of WVR/dogfighting.

A few answers: - It was reported that the first operational EXs won’t receive conformal fuel tanks, so they will not have the weight and drag of an F-15E. - It isn’t planned to be a “dogfighter.” Like the F-15E, it will use its advanced radar to prevent turning fights and all-aspect off-boresight missiles if it gets into a turning fight.

To the best of my knowledge, the -65 and the -88 have been tested but have never been carried operationally. It wouldn't be terribly surprising to learn that the -65 has been carried operationally at some point (although infrequently) but I'd be very surprised if the -88 has.

This is correct. There was an article about this on The Aviationist a while back. They call this a "tac-ferry" configuration, and it is used simply to transport bombs to a forward operating base. It stated in the article that this is more bombs than a Strike Eagle can use on one mission. Link: F-15E Strike Eagles Execute First Operational Tactical Munitions Ferry With The New “Bomb Truck” Configuration - The Aviationist

I'm sure they'll get around to making the volume controls for the TEWS work sooner than later, but man, that thing is ridiculously loud in its current state.

I agree, it is almost like the nose wheel is "sticky", and the back pressure releases the wheel from the ground all at once resulting in a sudden pitch-up movement.

Actually, I couldn't agree more... if people want better sounds, by all means, have at it. Just pointing out that there is a weird dynamic in the flight sim community about what "realism" people really want. If people really wanted "realism", they'd need to make the area where they play about 100 degrees fahrenheit, smell like a moldy locker room, spend an hour briefing on weather, control agencies, and comms, then jump in a cockpit where some of the systems may or may not function in that given jet on that given day. I'm always amused when someone is like "the F-16 is junk because it doesn't sustain a 9g turn while half-loaded at 22,000 feet because rEaliSm!!!", then complains that Heatblur added dynamic cockpits that show the kind of wear a jet has in real life. Also, I'd commend Razbam... they actually got the audio right. Posting this also made me realize how bad the weather and ATC simulations are in DCS...

I'd say for the same reason that there are endless debates about what weapons should be available on which aircraft (reference the debate that took place about whether F-16's should be able to carry four HARMs)... because people are people. The surprising thing to me is that there isn't one comment regarding the ECS noise to the effect of "finally, a developer got the sound right!"

Just an observation / commentary on the quest for "realism" in DCS and sims in general: - Everyone loses their ever-loving mind if the smallest system doesn't function as they expect - People pour over charts to ensure that the flight model performs exactly like the real-world aircraft - Developers take years to study the aircraft and replicate it to represent the real-world aircraft as closely as possible - Then, when real-world pilots repeatedly say "you never hear the engines at all... the noise from the ECS is so overwhelming it is really all you hear", the customers are like "turn the ECS noise down, I want to hear the afterburner!"

On the E, the conformal fuel tanks add a ton of drag and weight. There is a good episode of the 10 Percent True podcast by Steve Davies where he interviews a real-world F-15E pilot named Stinger (it is the 4th episode of a series with him) where he talks about BFM in the E, and long story short, it is not a BFM machine. He states that "the Strike Eagle has never met a knot it can't lose" and that if you find yourself in a dogfight, you basically get one good pull to get the nose on the enemy, and that after that it is time to think about options to exit the fight. It's worth a listen.

Does anyone know if the threat indications on the TEWS screen can be seperated in any way? If you're flying in a busy environment, the indications are all right on top of one another making them difficult to decipher. Thanks in advance.

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. In real life, it appears the map has a "flat" color kind of appearance to it. The glossy image makes the symbols difficult to read.

Ok, I’m a bit slow on the uptake. Yes, I’ve read the manual. Anyone know how to turn the volume down on the threat warnings?

I'm wondering as well. Anyone know what this does or what the impact of changing it is?

The US Air Force F-15E doesn't really carry any AG missiles that I can think of other than the AGM-130, which I think is coming later in the early access period. The Maverick and HARM aren't really used by the 'E', although it has been tested with the Maverick. I haven't had any problems getting radar returns, so not sure I can help there. The grip is the same in layout as the Hornet grip. They aren't exactly the same, but they are very, very similar.

Couldn’t have said it better. The line of “we never gave a release date” is a bit disingenuous given that just a few weeks prior ED was posting on their twitter that it was “coming in hot” and that “soon you’ll be flying…” Havent checked in a while but last I did, that twitter post was still there. If you found a mistake, it is what it is, but say so, and maybe provide a more clear timeline. I’ve long said the problem isn’t early access, it’s the communications and marketing practices around the early access that frustrates people. Anyway, thanks for the continued efforts to make a successful launch, and thanks to the moderators for dealing with our gripes.

I'm curious as well. Really great looking skin. Did it ever see the light of day?