Exorcet

Why does this even matter? The B-52 was designed to drop nuclear weapons, how many nuclear strikes has it made? The F-15 was pretty clearly designed to dogfight. Even factoring in the MiG-25, the west initially believed that it was an agile plane. This wasn't totally debunked until 1976 when Eagles were already flying.

I missed this before, but the lack of bombs on the FC F-15 is just an FC thing. If we get a full F-15C, it will in fact be able to drop bombs including LGB's.

This question would be better placed in the general DCS 2.8 forum, but to answer your question you should be able to refuel from any tanker that is in the same coalition as you and that uses a boom (like the KC-135). The tanker does not need to be from the same country.

We don't have Europe or the US in the Syria map though, so I think it makes sense to have options to park bombers even if that doesn't completely match reality. In fact there are quite a few "traps" that DCS map makers should be aware of. Parking issues, taxi issues, wind direction issues, runway issues. Until ED can figure those things out, I am 100% fine with fictional changes to air bases to make them more usable.

The Eurofighter is still a ways away from a release date. The Eagle also being "half finished" may release before the EF even if it work on it starts later. When the EF arrives, what I said about lacking a pure fighter won't be true anymore, but I was referring to hear and now. I respect your opinion the F-15C, though I don't really understand it. I would also say flight model is the most important part of the simulation, but proper systems are also very important. I fly F-16 over the FC F-15 partially because of this. There is simply more capability in a FF cockpit. FC planes can BVR and dogfight fine, but they don't let you play with TACAN, or update waypoints mid mission to handle a dynamic situation, or manage radios to coordinate with different assets. You can't program your CM's, you lose the immersive start up, and then there are features of the plane that are completely missing like F-15's Supersearch mode. The Strike Eagle can be used as a C Eagle, but operationally this wouldn't be the case. I tend to avoid servers or missions that are mirror matches with the same planes on both sides for the same reason. The Strike Eagle's weight and drag penalties are also going to be noticeable. The 229's make up for it in some cases, but the C is always going to have more potential when it comes to speed, altitude, and acceleration since it can be flown clean, plus weapons. Maneuverability also goes to the C, and you'll feel it at high altitude when in BVR combat and also when up close. That's my view on things at least.

It's more complex than that, even putting aside single player and just looking at MP, a 2000's Eagle still has a role a fill. We don't have to have, and in my opinion shouldn't have, mirror missions online. At least not always. Red air can have inferior planes supported by superior SAM's. This can make Su-27/J-11/MiG-29 a lot more problematic for blue side. There is also the JF-17 as a reasonable adversary. Also remember that during Cope India 2004 even MiG-21 Bisons were shown to be effective with proper tactics. Yes the exercise did put restrictions on the USAF, but I think it still shows that the situation you find yourself in matters. Red side can work with greater numbers and SAM's in play. But I'm not trying to downplay one version of the Eagle for another. Unless a developer comes along and asks for a poll or something, it's going to be their choice what version is modeled. All the air to air F-15's would bring something great to DCS.

With mid/late 2000's teen fighters already in DCS, we really should have an Eagle from a similar time frame. Having the entire teen series covered in full detail would be really nice for cooperative online situations. A Gulf War specific F-15 would also be really nice to have, but we don't actually have the map for it yet. We could perhaps just make do with a pre MSIP C to cover the 70's-80's. Or of course, take the best answer and just more variants. If most of the differences between 2005ish and late 80's/early 90's is omission of Link 16, 9X, and helmet, it might be feasible.

Carrier is nice, but I've never really considered it a big deal. If I had the choice between two versions of the same plane, one Air Force and one Navy, I'd usually go Air Force. A busy land base can be as interesting as a boat, Air Force tends to have better HOTAS in my opinion, and the plane might be lighter without carrier gear. I see people praise the variety of Hornet missions, and I understand why, but is Harpooning that much different from Mav's or JDAM? I feel like the only thing lacking from the Strike Eagle is HARM because I feel like it would be an amazing SEAD platform. Other than that, it has enough variety to feel pretty much as flexible as the Hornet unless you really happen to like a specific weapon like Harpoon. They might be of the same generation but the Eagle is a bigger and more expensive plane and that comes with better avionics, especially the radar. The Strike Eagle's second seat is optional unlike the Tomcat. As far as DCS is concerned, it's a single seater, though you do have to carry around the penalties of the backseat. For me this is absolutely important. I hate unrealistically quick missions. They feel contrived and unrealistic. Having to manage fuel is fun, and huge maps (1000's of miles) are the most interesting for me. It's more than just range. Endurance can play a part. I have a Hornet mission that involves flying under radar. It's impossible to do without AAR because of the reduced range from flying at a few hundred feet. The Strike Eagle could probably do it without refueling because of its greater fuel fraction and the ability to fly from land bases (an issue with carriers if you're being realistic is that they need to be really far from the front lines to avoid being destroyed - when flying a USN Hornet my carrier usually ends up at the very corner of the map). I'd also suggest to people who haven't tried prolonged search missions to try them at least once. It's a lot of fun. Not knowing where or when the enemy will show up can add tension and keep you engaged. I've been perfectly content to fly CAP missions for hours without finding the enemy, because the entire time I was on alert looking for them. Objectively, I can't see the Hornet being a better purchase. Like 99% of cases it's going to come down to buyer's preference. The exception here being that the Hornet will be a more mature module with more content released. That's the only way I could suggest the Hornet over the Strike Eagle generally, if you want maturity and readily available content.

Are you talking about the group dispersing when hit? This has been a waypoint options for many years. You can turn off the behavior so they just keep driving. Under Waypoint Actions > Options > Disperse Under Fire, then uncheck the box.

By that logic, just use the F-4 or F-14. The AMRAAM era lacks a true air superiority fighter, and as capable as the E is, it's still a bomb truck. The good news is that we could probably get early and late Eagles together since the airframe and cockpit didn't change that much with time.

I'd like to see Deka's "F-16" fly remotely like a F-16. Everyone has their preferences but I never expected to see people say that sharing a HUD makes two planes identical. Anyway, I'm glad that some developers are modeling unique planes like this. I'm really curious to see how it flies and operates. I also appreciate having the additional AI version. I really have to hand it to Deka, even when not taking their modules into consideration they've done a lot for DCS by providing the free asset pack and fleshing out one of the major nations in DCS. Please keep it up.

Don't forget to factor in acceleration though, as both planes would likely be subsonic before they detected each other. The Strike Eagle has some speed limitations that the C does not, but the acceleration is still decently good depending on loadout. Range numbers need to be paired with firing conditions though, or they are hard to use. What we do know right now is that the F-15C with AMRAAM holds the record for the longest air to air kill according to the USAF: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40184/f-15-eagle-scores-longest-known-air-to-air-missile-shot-during-u-s-air-force-test Also while the Super Tomcat and Strike Eagle have similar radar technology, they don't use exactly the same unit. The Tomcat used the 71, the Strike Eagle the 70. Sadly both the Tomcat and the Eagle never reached their full potential in any case with the wind down of the Cold War, budget cuts, and newer planes incoming. I'd have loved to see F-14D's in extended service along with F-15F's (F-15C with all the improvements gained with the E, and refocused for air to air).

That's only if the Tomcat is in an advantageous position. The AMRAAM can easily exceed 60 miles, what's holding it back is not its motor but launch platform radar. The F-15 has the speed and avionics to make AMRAAM a better missile than the Phoenix even at long range. The E is penalized by extra weight and drag, but the 229 engines are immensely powerful. Loaded for air to air, it will be competitive against the entire existing DCS roster. F-15C's will be able to drop tanks and go faster and maneuver better at altitude, but the E won't be so far behind as to be helpless. For comparison, it will definitely outspeed the F-18 if both are carrying a typical CAP load. A Tomcat with AIM-54's will also be slower. In terms of maneuver the E might fall behind both at high altitude during BVR and lower speeds in dogfights, but in the initial engagement, the 229's with their acceleration will make it a tough adversary.

Supposedly FC won't see any more development, so a FF module is the only hope. I don't mind that though, the Eagle is too good to be limited to a FC level simulation in my opinion. Over 10 years that we've had the PFM and modeled switches in the cockpit, but still no avionics to go with them.

Made an attempt out of Nellis, did a climb to 40000 ft, accelerated to almost M2 and then pulled up: I've broken Mach 2 before, but I don't think I've ever tried to zoom climb. I feel like you can exceed 80,000 ft if you started from the right altitude.

Look up triggers in the DCS manual. You can use a Sound to Unit/Group/Country/etc trigger to load a sound file for instance. Something like: Mission Start > No condition > Sound to Unit (player, music.fileextension) EDIT What it would look like in the ME trigger menu:

The 70 has been removed if I recall, which probably causes issues like this in old missions.

Preplanning is realistic though. They also aren't really scripted events. You can assign "Search Then Engage" tasks to your own flight. This will make your wingmen seek out targets even if they are dynamically spawned or hidden in the briefing.

Something you can try to get wingmen to engage is the engage mission command. This is a command in the wingman menu that comes in two versions, one to execute and rejoin and the other to execute and RTB. The commands make wingmen behave like normal AI and follow their waypoint tasks automatically. This won't let you designate popup targets via TGP, but you can at least make an attack plan ahead of the mission. The AI is a lot better at dealing with preplanned threats than dynamic ones, so it might be best to leave known targets for wingmen while you as the player look out for dynamic targets. Here is a video explaining the command:

This is mainly for AI wingmen. Since PP attack mode in some planes requires a WP to be placed over the target, I think a new waypoint class is needed to prevent the AI from flying over these waypoints. Currently AI told to engage mission or similar will treat these target points as normal waypoints which likely makes them fly very low into hostile territory and get shot down. If we could mark these WP's as attack points or something and this label made the AI ignore the WP in terms of navigation it would help prevent them from flying around where they shouldn't.

So very true. I know ED had played with the idea of an IADS module to fix this, but that's overkill (but still a very welcome addition to DCS). Just give the base AI tactics. They don't need to be as smart as a real SAM operator if that's too difficult to code. Just make them look like they're trying to survive, ie flashing radars, shutting down against ARM's, and cooperation with other units like EWR.

Many years ago I ran DCS on a laptop. I don't recommend it and I haven't bothered looking into current day laptops for this task. However I want to point out that cooling will probably matter a lot. Along with getting the right CPU and GPU, look for laptops designed to play games that have adequate airflow.

The definition of simulator needs to be pinned somewhere on this forum since no one seems to know what it means.

DCS is a sandbox, there isn't really a problem. Simulating the Vietnam War is as exciting as simulating a fictional war against China with J-8PP's fielded, isn't it? If you prefer one over the other you can also ignore the one you don't like. That they are prototypes doesn't really matter, what does is if they are documented in detail. If they are documented in detail, then they'd be fine for DCS. Deka should be able to work on what they want, and who is even to say that the planes you list are possible? DCS has room for multiple developers, not everyone has to chase the most popular planes.

The J-8PP fully meets the criteria of a simulation. Simulation does not mean historical accuracy, and never has. The only take away you can make here is that people are open to simulations that are outside of historical events. This has been the case since before DCS was released as even LOMAC was based on fictional combat involving simulated aircraft.