Alpha

Of course VR is better and I haven´t done it in ages in 2D on some computer, I´m only playing in VR. Having done actual AAR in real life I still feel there´s a bunch of factors not really simulated (or simulatable...) on any home computer. In real life there´s a bunch of aerodynamic effects and influences you don´t get to a comparable degree in DCS. You can use 100% of the booms range of motion and nobody will abort your refueling for obviously poor performance. You can fall of the boom in any direction and there´s no damage to either boom or aircraft. There´s no rough air throwing you around - you´re always sitting at 1G somewhere. You´ll never get blinded like the sun can in real life. The psychological difference between a Simulation/Game and using real aircraft with real value and real people is "worlds apart". Tanking in DCS for a few minutes might make your wrist sore - that´s nothing compared to how you sometimes feel while doing that in a real jet. In the game if you can´t hack the tanking it isn´t really a problem. In the real world your mission is in danger, your peers are watching and might be getting into trouble due to your f... up. I could go on and on, but you´ll get the point Yeah - it´s a good simulation, it feels pretty comparable, you´ll see the same mistakes you usually do in real life, but still... it´s a game. Without getting too much off-topic: you can fly nice patterns in DCS in VR, doing all the right things and procedures. Take a (rear) seat in a real jet and you´ll instantly see and feel the difference. Just like some other form of "Entertainment" which can be had in front of a computer - if you tried the real deal you know: it´s just not the same...

No, it isn´t.

While I do understand what you mean that "problem" only occurs because you skip all the stuff that´s done while the INS aligns in real life. I know it´s not really necessary in DCS, but IRL there´s stuff to do while the INS alignment is running. Some of those checks are done in coordination with the crew chief. In the F4 some of the checks are Speedbrake, Flaps/Slats, Flight Controls, Stab Augs, Air Refueling Door, Hook etc. For example you´d deploy the Flaps, check Elevator Aft/Fwd, Rudder L/R, Aileron Left and hold it there. Then you´d engage the Yaw Aug and (with the help of the Crew Chief) check if the rudder kicks a bit as required. Then you go Aileron neutral and switch off the Yaw Aug. Now you´d do the same with "Aileron right". And so on... I do hope the manual will include all/most of the checks done in real life - there enough so you will initially not be able to squeeze those in while the INS aligns. In other words: the INS will wait for you... Of course it´s really up to each player if those checks are done - but they are never skipped in real life.

Well, this is really off-topic, but anyways: Yeah, I´ve talked to a bunch of people who got danger-close support by A10s - very happy customers. And while time-on-station, loadout etc are important the most important thing still is the ability and training of the crew. There´s really nobody within the fixed-wing community who does more CAS than Hog-Drivers and nobody who is as proficient in that field. Just like about anybody with a radio can do emergency CAS there´s a huge difference to a trained/qualified JTAC. It´s really the same in the air - while a lot of platforms and units can do CAS to some extend (hell, even the Buff guys pitch in here) there´s a huge difference to a qualified Hog-Driver. CAS is really training intensive, you just don´t get to the Hog-Drivers level of proficiency by doing this half as much as they do. Which is why this discussion never ever exists in real military aviation and saying "hogs are bad at CAS" is probably among the Top3 things to show how little one knows about real military aviation. Having flown a different jet with a very different task I remember that as early as during UPT we got to experience the Hog-Communities focus on that stuff and I have never heard anybody from any other weapon system (fixed-wing) claiming they´d be as good in that field. There´s really no discussion IRL.

That must be a typo. The A-10 Community was and is King of the Hill in terms of CAS. That´s their primary mission, they do this all the time, the platform is good - within the RL military aviation community you´ll never find anybody who doubts the A-10 bros to be very, very good at CAS.

A bit late, but anyway: As pointed out in this thread the F-4 Gunsight (LCOSS) was rather rudimentary compared to later systems and it wasn´t a HUD. In the F-4F (ICE Version) one could use the LCOSS as a "poor man´s TD Box" as the Sight indicated the position of the aquired Target when in an Air-Air Missile mode and locked to a target (and within the rather small field of view of the LCOSS). As the ICE Changes were mostly radar/ins/databus/weapons computer I imagine the older F-4E to have the same ability, can´t say for sure though.

As pointed out by GGTharos and others: There´s a reason the saying is "Jack of all Trades - master of none". Part of it is due to the platform but mostly it´s about the training. Any dedicated Air-Air Unit spends 100% of their time training Air-Air - and they need all those hours to reach and maintain the highest level in their field. Even given unlimited funds -> hours a squadron would never be able to train each task to the same, high level. Any multirole Unit has to divide their Flighttime into very different areas - it´s a huge differrence when you have 200hrs per year and pilot and split that into Air-Air, Strike, CAS,... vs being in a pure Air-Air squadron using 200hrs to fly Air-Air. No multirole unit ever pretends to be as well trained as any specialised unit _in that area_. Platforms aside, A10s are great at CAS because they spend almost 100% of their time doing that. The light grey (F-15C) were "King of Air-Air" because that´s all they ever did. Dedicated SEAD-Units might even fly the same jet as other units do - they´re still way better in that area due to their training. Training matters big time. Any combination of very different tasks (Air-Mud, Air-Air) is a compromise due to limited resources. And that´s where the first quoted sentence is missing the point a bit: Desert Storm deployed a very well trained western Alliance with several single-Task Masters (like the F-15C, but also F-4G Wild Weasel, Tornado, EF-111, F117,...), their coordination and experience being boosted for decades by superior training (Red Flag is a pretty famous training revolution) to a level higher than seen by any "combat experienced" iraqi crews. Again: Training matters. For the capability of the Mudhen: It can do Air-Air but it´s made for Air-Ground, reflected in training and the very jet itself. To quote Toro, a real Mudhen-Driver: "If you want an A/A mission with an aircraft that excels at that mission, go C model. If you want a dual role aircraft that is designed to excel at A/G, go for the Strike Eagle. The Mudhens can't BFM for <profanity> against the Vipers and Eagles, but the other guys don't get to rage into a threat zone at more than 500 knots, less than 500 feet, blacked out, at night." (https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/topic/21493-single-seat-or-strike-eagle/?page=2)

Hi MudMoverGSH. I agree with your view on FF as mentioned in your first Post. There is some gain in realism - it´s just not as big as with aircraft where one can feel airloads on control surfaces. Also your point on HOTAS vs FF is spot on from my point of view. In the end it´s all personal preference, I guess (I´d recommend a good HOTAS Setup and some sort of jetpad/buttkicker - most feedback in military jets come via burble from the wings impinging on the stabilator/airframe and you feel it via the structure/seat, hardly via the stick. "Pull to the light tickle", "mice vs elephants dancing on the wings" etc are all in reference to that.) On the trim: Moving the neutral position would mean moving the stick if nobody held it in the desired position, yes. As the pilot usually holds the stick you just feel the forces change. Example: you feel the jet being nose-heavy. Now you start trimming back, the neutral point is shifted and therefore the forces at the current stick position change towards "tail heavy" - compensating the prior, unwanted "nose heavy". At the right trim amount you can now let go of the stick and the jet remains trimmed with the stick not moving when you let it go. It´s a bit cumbersome to explain, sorry That system/logic is widely used, even in airliners (talking non-FBW and usually aileron trim only. Pitch trimming is done via moving the stabilator). There you could trim the aileron while the autopilot has control - which completely masks the trim change as the autopilot is "the hand on the stick" in that case. If you´d now disengage autopilot you´d suddenly get back an out-of-trim aircraft and you couldn´t see that before as the yoke doesn´t move (That´s why manually trimming control surfaces with a moving neutral point is forbidden and results in an EICAS indication).

Well, then just work with us, this is not a contest. I´ve given multiple quotes above, including the official "Handbook", the -1. It says: "This provides the same pitch response (constant G) for a given stick deflection regardless of airspeed." And it says "Because of the automatic trim feature, the stick force required to maintain a desired g does not change with airspeed or configuration change." Also there´s a huge difference between "stick position" and "neutral point", as explained above. This system of changing the neutral point as rather common - I´ve flown military jets and airliners with a similar system. The constant stick force per G is explicitly mentioned in the system desciption I linked and quoted above. There´s even a graphic representation of it. So clearly just saying "it´s wrong" doesn´t cut it. So don´t get defensive but explain what´s wrong from your point of view.

Can you be more specific as to what is wrong from your point of view? We were only talking about pitch trim, not T/O Trim or Aileron trim. It moves the neutral point. Stick position only depends on where the pilot puts it. He trims (if required) to not have to fight the out-of-trim. This is achieved by moving the neutral point. Nobody said that. See the pictures and references given above. The -1 is pretty clear on this. The only question really is as to how much the manual trim needs to be used in Flight IRL despite the obvious effort of the FCS to keep this to a minimum.

Yeah, that´s correct as per the system description when using manual trim. It resets the neutral point, thereby changing the (unwanted) forces at the current stick position. Changing the position of the neutral point is just a way to changing the forces at it´s current position (trimming required out-of-trim stick forces away). Obviously the stick would only move during manual trim if you´d let go of it. IRL you have the stick in your hand and notice a continuous, unwanted stick force due to being out-of-trim - and therefore you´d trim manually. So the stick doesn´t change position but the forces you experience while holding it at it´s correct position change (there´s a ton of "sts" in those sentences... ). My question would be how often this is required in Flight in a real F15. The system desciptions all point at a rather automatic trim system with little manual trim input required. Not "none", but rather little.

@Rainmaker: So, are the references provided incorrect? They explicitly mention: "Remember, the Eagle flys at essentially a constant stick position for a given g." (https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm) "The combination of feel trim, variable mechanical advantage, and series trimming gives the pilot, as near as possible, a constant stick force per G and keeps the stick pretty well in the same place in the cockpit throughout the flight." (https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html) Stick-Force per Deflection and per G: https://imgur.com/a/qnyrpD0 "This provides the same pitch response (constant G) for a given stick deflection regardless of airspeed." (TO 1F-15A-1, 1-28) "When airborne, the flight control system automatically trims the stabilator without affecting stick position to compensate for changes in trim caused by such things as changing speed, operating flaps or speed brake, or store separations." (same) Manual trim does move the neutral stick position - but that should happen when there´s an out-of-neutral position not covered by the automatic trim so the resetting of the neutral point should bring it back to where it was/should be while in-trim... That´s why I think we´re really saying the same. "Pitch response to stick input does not vary appreciably with airspeed, altitude, engine power, or configuration change" (6-1 of the Dash 1). That sounds not at all like the varying stick forces you get in your local C172 or any aircraft with unpowered flight controls. The Phantom, for example, has noticably different stick forces at different speeds (because those forces are introduced artifically by a speed-dependant system), the Eagles description doesn´t sound much like that.

If I understand you correctly we´re both saying about the same: stick forces in the Strike are pretty much constant per G through the flight envelope and while most of the (pitch) trimming seems to be handled by the FCS the pilot can and will trim any "out of center" trim position back to center. That´s why I think one will benefit very little from a FFB-stick at home. A FFB-Stick is nice for "Cessna-types", any old props, some smaller jets as they have very different / changing stick forces depending (mostly) on airspeed. Modern fighters with hydraulically powered flight controls don´t really behave like that. I´ve never flown an Eagle, but the difference was obvious changing from the T-37 to the T-38: In the T-37 you had flight controls connected to the stick via cables and pulleys - you could feels the air loads an the control surfaces, stick forces were not "constant-ish" at all. In the T-38 with it´s hydraulically powered flight controls the stick forces didn´t change like that - the sensitivity did (rather sluggish pitch at slow speeds, rather fickle pitch at high speeds). The way I understand the references given above the F-15E should be like that and in addition the sensitivity is mangaged by the FCS so that a given stick force (pitch) of about 4.25lbs should pretty much always be required for "one more G - worth of pull" (the edges of the envelope are explained in more detail in the given references). In simple terms: you pull 4.25lbs, you´re commanding one additional G . You pull 8.5lbs, you get two G and so forth. Additionally the Microsoft Stick (and the G940, which I tried many moons ago) are nowhere as close to the real HOTAS-Layout as TM´s Warthog etc. In the End it´s all personal preference - just don´t expect a modern fighter to have the "slow speed = wobbly, soft stick forces, high speed = heavy stick forces" - behavior that props / old jets without hydraulic flight controls do...

See the Links provided before (Feb 08 Posting). Examples: https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm "The ratio is scheduled to produce essentially the same stick travel per "g" throughout the flight envelope. Since the longitudinal feel system is just a simple spring cartridge, this then relates to a constant stick force per "g" (Fs/g) (about 4.25 lb/g). It is scheduled by Mach number and altitude and does a rather good job; however, it won't quite cover the full range of aircraft and stabilator power and there is some scatter of the Fs/g, i.e., some mild increase in sensitivity during low altitude/high speed flight, and some decrease in sensitivity at low speeds." https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html The Document says: " The combination of feel trim, variable mechanical advantage, and series trimming gives the pilot, as near as possible, a constant stick force per G and keeps the stick pretty well in the same place in the cockpit throughout the flight." Stick Forces: https://imgur.com/a/qnyrpD0 Granted - that´s all -C Model, but I didn´t find different Info for the -E.

As mentioned before: the Stick forces in the real F-15E are linear force per G and do not change with Airspeed. The stick position also doesn't change while trimming (see links above). There's really no point in FFB with the Strike Eagle.

Well, as usual: it depends and techniques vary... The director lights were a primary indicator of the proper position (to start with, worked quite alright for fighters as well) as were the boomer comments as well as those from the backseat (then again - there are WSOs hardly talking at all, some talk a lot and so on...). Then there´s the sight picture you´d fly as the pilot depending on which aircraft you´re tanking from. There´s seating position (for the director lights a lot of guys had to be either seat full up or full down), you could see boom/markings in the top mirror etc. There might have been WSOs who could and would maintain the position on the boom for a while, but I can´t remember a wso (or IP, for that matter) fly into contact position from the back seat. I do agree that a wso could be very helpful - but you could AAR without him as well. Never heard of a WSO fly from pre-contact to contact and stay on the boom - but given the very forgiving nature of a computer simulation I´m sure there will be DCS-clips, sooner or later... .

Nahen, Dude, piling even moire BS on top of BS just makes it more emberrassing for you. "I meant.." - yeah, this whole thread you´re proven wrong by various people on a bunch of wild theories and then you try the "...but I meant..."-thing. Hwang had shot his Amraam and was still supporting it (not quite as intended as HDTWS isn´t the proper mode for that, but anyway) while running a front Aspect Intercept at close range and high Vc. That´s why he tried to uncage the Sidewinder. But as he got no tone this just showed that it wasn´t employable - another Amraam-kill, end of story. That whole "2nm", armchair-song and shots beyond "ideal conditions" is pure BS. There´s plenty of stuff going on as to when and what mssile is employed in which way. It´s got nothing to do with set amount of miles and they are not at all shot "beyond ideal conditions". Usually they aren´t even launched at maximum range. As GGTharos said - there are scenarios where one can shoot Fox2 at pretty big ranges. But that´s not the point. Bottom Line with as per this thread: The (light grey) Eagle is a very good Air-Air Platform, be it BVR or at the merge. Their crews are very good as well and highly proficient in that business. The main Weapon is the Amraam whenever available and not min-ranged. The Mudhen should be pretty close to their abilities in BVR and way less maneuverable at the merge (which is why they wouldn´t go there when given the choice - and employ solid ACM when being forced to it).

All four of those were Aim-120s. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-15-vs-mig-29-the-493rd-fs-mig-kills-scored-during-operation-allied-force/ But that´s just one of the many mistakes and misconceptions about Air Combat you´ve shown in this thread (as mentioned by a lot of people here).

The Pilot flies the F4 into position using the tanker´s director lights. There is no need for any help from the backseat - and as you can´t really see the director lights from there tanking from the rear seat isn´t a thing.

I don´t think a FFB-Stick is needed as the real F15 has a (almost) constant Stick-Force per G at all speeds. As real Stick Forces are way higher than any PC-Stick provides and as DCS can not measure the Force it will pretty much come down to "stick displacement vs G". Here´s some Background Info regarding the real F15 Flight Controls: https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm https://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html That website has more in-depth information if needed. Graphs, if needed: https://imgur.com/a/qnyrpD0 That being said: I never flew a real F15 and have to rely on that website (and other military jets I have flown). Also there is feedback in the form of buffeting of the airframe (depending on AOA) on most fast jet - but that doesn´t really go through the stick (sts) but through the airframe itself. You can hear and feel the jet performing - from "light tickle" to "elephants dancing on the wings". So get a normal Joystick with rather heavy springs and some form of Jetpad/Buttkicker/whatever

Elphaba, I will not discuss what´s limiting your imagination - nobody can really help you there. If a "wrong" voice, haircolor, leglength, a bad livery, wrong serial number or whatever is a deal-breaker for your immersion or puts your train-of-thought into a search for exclusion then that really says nothing about the game, its developers or the vast majority of users who just don´t care about the imaginary voice of some imaginary computer-game-character while sitting in front of some desk, pretening to fly an imaginary airplane... This is really nothing more than the usual discussion of someone complaining about a "missing livery of his favorite squadron" - either the developer feels like changing it or he doesn´t. Chances are if they aren´t bored without stuff to do they´ll not put ressources to that very minor cosmetic issue only even noticable for a small fraction of users. By the very concept of a "home computer game" vs "flying a real fighter jet" players/users are a very open-minded, imaginative, inclusive bunch. There´s probably some value in trying to see things through their eyes instead of trying to introduce one´s own limits to imagination upon them.

There not only two skin colors, nickos86. Instead of using time and effort to create dozens of different skin colors, voices, headsizes, noses,... this game, just like most others, relies on a bit of imagination on the user´s side and a generic pilot model (the fact that a fighter pilot wears visor, helmet, flightsuit etc makes seeing skin almost impossible anyway...). After all: nobody is actually flying anything - everybody is just sitting in front of some computer, pretending to be flying using a computer game. So don´t let yourselve be limited by forgetting about the most important thing: "imagination", as this is the main and most important ingredient for any computer game/simulation.

Absolutely rediculous. This is a military Flight sim and it has generic pilot models in flightsuit, helmet, visor down. Anybody who wastes a thought about if there's a dude or dudess or which color the invisible skin has (there's way more than two colors...) should just stick with "The Sims" and troll somewhere else.

The upgraded F-4F worked just fine without any MFDs. The WSO´s Screen was used to show all the required Data and he used the HCU to select various Items on that screen. As mentioned before the Pilot just had the Repeater for what the WSO currently saw. There were certain changes "below the hood" but a MFD is not required. Actually if HB just put the Hornet´s Radar into the F-4 we´d be pretty close to an F-4F as flown in the German Air Force.

OMG. It´s been pointed out multiple times that a WSO is not a pilot. They don´t get pilot training, don´t get a pilot rating and their job is not the one of the pilot. In my UPT class there was a guy who used to be a F-15E WSO. He went to UPT and there he became a pilot when he got his wings (later on he went to the Mudhen again, this time as a pilot). He had a civil private Pilot license before - but he would never ever have embarrassed himself by claiming to be a pilot while being a Mudhen WSO. Long story short: just as Notso said - a WSO is NOT a Pilot. End of story.