S77th-GOYA

This is the old track I made when we had this debate before. It shows an F-15 weighing in at 34926 lbs taking off at full AB and immediately climbing full vertical. Acceleration stops before it reaches vertical and at only ~1200 feet. Yes, 1200, not 12,000. The max KTAS acheived is 234. NASA's EngineSim gives the net thrust for the F100 engine at 1200 feet and 234 knots as 27670 lbs. Doubling that for the F-15 gives 55,340 lbs of thrust. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/ngnsim.html Please note that the plane weighs 34,926 lbs and its thrust is 55,340 lbs. That's an excess of more than 20,000 lbs of thrust. So let's talk about drag. Using a drag coefficient of .15 and 234 knots and 1200 feet the drag force comes to 2320 lbs. D = .5 * .0023 * 395.226^2 * 86.111 * .15 = 2320 lbs Granted, the F-15 in the track is not at 0 AoA so the Cd is higher than .15. (AoA is around 10 degrees in the track) But even if the Cd was 1.0, the drag force would still only be 15,468 lbs and the F-15 would still accelerate. Also, I believe EngineSim to be modeling the higher output version of the F100. But that difference still doesn't explain LOMAC's modeling. straightup.zip

If that is true, at what altitude does thrust match your weight?

As an aside, the Foxbat is fast but it doesn't have a good thrust to weight ratio. PS: HAHAHAHAHAHA! And Yo-Yo, maybe I should have started with this question: Do you think the real F-15C can accelerate vertically at any speed/altitude? Same question for the MiG-29?

Start there and go full AB and pull up. For that matter, try it at any speed and altitude you choose. The LOMAC F-15 will not accelerate in the vertical.

50 ft & 350KCAS

Yo-Yo, why can't the LOMAC F-15 with a 50% fuel load and clean configuration accelerate vertically?

Which chart?

OK. Preach on, brother!

D-Scythe, I am a member of the choir to which you are preaching. I know for a fact that climb performance of the 15 as well as every other fighter in this game has been thoroughly discussed and has been overwhelmingly deemed lacking. Is there a point in rehashing this?

This community generally screams for realism. Realism defines a simulator. LOMAC is a game. As long as it is a game, there will be those that game the game and those that treat it like a simulator. And thus, there will always be this conflict in one form or another. Those that exploit any unrealistic aspects of the modeling to enhance their chances of victory and those that ignore those aspects because they want to treat their flight time as realistically as they can. Unfortunately, LOMAC gives us no option to separate the two schools of thought in a multiplayer atmosphere.

IMO, anyone that has any expectation of full representation of avionics, much less AFM, for the fighters currently modelled in LO is sadly over- optimistic. I simply want the things that are modelled to be modelled more realistically. For example, missiles biting on chaff. It can't be that difficult to reduce the parameter that controls whether or not a missile will be spoofed. It just doesn't seem possible that a change in that code would affect anything else. It is simply not related to anything else. F-15 TWS locks not centering the primary is another glaring problem.

It wasn't an insinuation; it was a simple straightforward statement. So, I trust you'll understand if I ignore your suggestion. If you wish to rationalize your hypocrisy with breaking lock on an AMRAAM shot before it goes active, it is your prerogative to do so.

Yes, and missiles are designed to hit their targets.

Honesty about being dishonest after being caught in the act doesn't count for much in my opinion.

IR AAMS could shoot down other AAMs before SAMs were given the magic missile capability. Using the Stinger to illustrate realism in the > Mach1 bug has some merit. However, every unit smaller than a Tung is affected. With most of those units you can throw the argument "It's beyond that weapon's capability" out the window. The fact that those unit's radar spikes disappear from an RWR as one crosses past supersonic is just silly.

Altitude is not a factor in the > Mach 1 problem. Like Strelas?

It could go on many, many more pages. We haven't even started in about missiles shooting down missiles yet. :music_whistling:

I've been smacked by a Tor at below treetop level during testing. The lack of ability of smaller SAMs to deal with > Mach1 targets is a different problem that needs to be addressed as well. Even a network of Dog Ears isn't immune.

I seem to recall the Tor and Tung don't have much of a problem with NOE targets.

That's worth a quote. :thumbup:

That is one of the times it happens. Another is when the locked a/c is near beam.

Maybe it has to do with our enjoyment of combat. No matter what you compare it to, FC and 1.12a hurt rather than helped several facets of LOMAC. e.g. uber-chaff and missiles shooting down missiles.

No, that would mean they track something. The missiles do this outside the range at which they would go semi-active. So they should go to the point towards which launching a/c expects the locked a/c to be. Plus any updates the launching a/c might send the missile. In LO, they just fly ballistically.

Which version of the game?

I'd hate to be a bumble bee caught in a Mach 0.5 wind. That S-300 would shoot me down. :smilewink: