Akrescue130

Loading cold or hot jet, programming PACS, the jet will not get any drop symbology for the BDU-50's. They also will not accept a loft angle. Symbology is present for jets loaded with bdu-50's from the mission editor.

I understand the point you’re trying to make and I with my limited knowledge can’t give you the answer you seek. In the 93’ -1, it talks about stall and departure warnings with units of aoa, and those audible warning are accurate from the documentation to the sim. As far as the aoa sustaining 25 degrees (~35 units) the only thing I can think of is BECAUSE of the heavier nose and much further forward CG in the E model, the elevators either just flat out don’t have enough authority for another 10 degrees, or the ability to pull that nose high was reduced in order to subdue negative flight handling and departure characteristics with the CFT’s installed and the changes of hardware/avionics.

It’s not a matter of coefficient in this sense…. That equation has already been done be engineers at McDonnell Douglas. They use units because most pilots are not going to sit down and figure out a plethora of coefficients and math out drag indexes for every single varying loading they may take. The units are simply a simplification. Just like how some aircraft report AoA as an actual degree, and some aircraft report AoA as. “Unit” of alpha. I never said drag has anything to with weight. I’m simply saying that the cft’s installed add an additional 4400 lbs of weight to the airframe empty. you can use the “units” of drag in this case scenario BECAUSE the airframe is technically the same and the math works. That’s why I suggested using a C model with empty wing tanks and adding 5000 lbs more in fuel to “simulate” having CFT’s installed to let you do some research on how much it affects the airframe. Will it ever be a true like for like? No not at all. Could it get you in a reasonable ballpark? It could, if both flight models are made fairly accurately. it seems that there is either somewhat of a language barrier here, or you are in denial about a lot of facts that people are supplying. I’m all for testing, finding bugs, and making sure things are correct, however throwing out blanket statements with any amplifying detail or background research to support your argument won’t get you anywhere. That being said, I’ll go ahead in some free time and see how those to setups compare. It will never be apples to apples, but it could be interesting

The CFT’s alone are 20.1 units of drag on top of a clean airframe, and weigh an additional 4400 pounds. If you want to try and “simulate” a similarity, take a C model give it 5,000 lbs more fuel than the E model, and add pylons and empty wing tanks. The wing pylons add 3.5 units of drag each, and the external wing fuel tanks add 7 units of drag each for a total of 21. On top of this the E model has a heavier nose due to the differences of avionics and radar, which makes it have a more forward center of gravity than the C model. There’s no way to really simulate this effect though, other than knowing that you reduce maneuverability when you pull the center of gravity away from the center of lift on the aircraft.

Made a discovery that the UFC data 1 page winds are showing winds TO and not FROM. Attached is screenshots showing the the UFC matches ME editor setting, but per SME feedback this is incorrect. Thanks!

Are you flying or on the ground stationary when this is happening?

Can also confirm. Civilian side I've never been required to request start clearance, but every Air Force base I've launched from has always been requesting start clearance from ground or clearance delivery depending on the flight plan

Like this?

We ran a bunch of tests of varying bomb loads and found we could reproduce this 100% of the time. ASL is way off out to lunch only with 2x GBU-10's loaded on the left CFT Asymmetric. We tested other loadouts with: 1x GBU-10 on the Left CFT 2x2 GBU-10 on Left and Right CFT 1x GBU-10 on the Right CFT 2x GBU-10 on the Right CFT Many other combination of loads with GBU-10's on the Right CFT with different munitions on the Left CFT with both A/A and A/G. All these parameters were fine as far as the ASL tracking onto the designation. The only issue with the ASL was with the 2x GBU-10 loadout asymmetric on the Left CFT. I don't know if this also coincides with the bug mentioned below where the PACS doesn't recognize that particular loadout on hot started or airborne jets. I will get tracks as soon as I can. Thanks!

Just to bring this back to light. This issue stems from pre loaded ordinance in either cold or hot start jets. Pacs is pre configured for all stations outside of that left CFT. Minor bug. Correctable by manually loading the left CFT

I've attached a screenshot of the page you need to read in the manual. There is also a nice training mission that shows you how to do this as well. The manual is located in program files/eagle dynamics/dcs open beta/mods/aircraft/f-15e/doc It can also be found on the razbam discord. if you dont like reading, or doing training missions, you can check NOTSO's youtube channel. If none of the above are options, then GLHF

I drop gbu-10s from the left CFT almost daily.... No issues here

I encountered this bug earlier, but didnt think anything of it until I read a post by Taerdyn in other topic. This bug has a couple of parts it seems. one is jettisoning stores can cause the airframe to start rolling uncontrollably, blacking the pilot out. Second part is after jettisons/dropping weapons, and rearming, it seems the weight of the airframe is being reduced by the weight of the stores you dropped. Attached is multiple logs and track files of the separate events. the final log is the one where the flight model got absolutely busted, and its a long one. it took time between take offs and landings to get the bug to really stand out. I've been able to reproduce this 100% of the time Towards the end, i could almost hover in the aircraft at about 30kias, and half throttle would catapult me to mach 1 at sea level almost instantly. dcs.log.old Drop tank bug f15.trk dcs.log Drop tank bug f15 2nd time.trk Jettison bug f15 part 2.trk f15 jettison fm bug.trk dcs Jettison.log

Here is another one just from jettisoning bombs. Jettison bug f15.trk

Here's some logs of me attempting to do what tae was talking about, but found a different bug with jettisoning fuel tanks a few times dcs.log.old Drop tank bug f15.trk dcs.log Drop tank bug f15 2nd time.trk

bump

bump

Hey all, Noticed yesterday some weird behavior with the GBU-24 in the cat. Released two, on two separate run ins, and the TTI reached 0 LONG before the bomb made its way to the mark. Tested it again against other laser guided bombs, and the 10/12/16 all worked as advertised. It is 100% repeatable with every GBU-24 release. The only track file I have is larger than 5MB, so I cannot upload here. Also, I found this report in the F-16C bugs: So this might be affecting purely the GBU-24, and may have nothing to do with the cat itself. Thanks for hopefully taking a peek, and have a great day!

I had an issue last night with GBU-24's. they had some weird behavior id never seen before, and jester was calling termination like 10 seconds before the bomb actually hit anything

Also remember as you turn, overall lift is decreased, thus requiring more power and speed to maintain correct alpha. As you roll out onto final wings level, you'll have to then reduce that power that was added in the turn

You have to calculate true airspeed from indicated from that altitude, then calculate mach from the TAS at 80,000 ft. Thats where ~300kias equals ~mach 3

If the tanker is out of usable fuel it can give you, it will also disconnect

Just something I've noticed after a while, is that it seems like the f14 ejection lacks a bit of vertical oomph compared to some of the other 4th gen fighters. I have no way to know whether or not this is accurate, but I notice on most ejections, the pilot ends up clipping through portions of the aircraft. In the 18 and 16, you skyrocket out of that thing with your pilot being well clear of the aircraft.

Hey guys! Just something I was thinking about. Having the ability to have jester input coordinates from a map marker is great, but in some scenarios (mostly busy multiplayer maps), it would be incredibly helpful to tie it in with naming the marker. Let's say if you wanted a specific map marker to go into waypoint 1, you could name it as such, or some other unique name, and have jester input it from that. It seems like it would be a bit neater than sorting through all the markers on a busy server. Thanks and have a great day!