I went to sleep - DCS F15

[cichlidfan]

Anybody could answer. It wasn't an offensive thread or anything, It is just strange when something like that disappears over night without explanation. Unless it all erupted while I was away?

 

It vanished not long after Wags changed the title of the F-15 announcement thread.

[NineLine]

Anybody could answer. It wasn't an offensive thread or anything, It is just strange when something like that disappears over night without explanation. Unless it all erupted while I was away?

 

It wasnt going anywhere good.

[Python]

Then it was a nice bit of optimism while it lasted...

[Scrim]

No. It still is what it was yesterday: an FC3 aircraft that got a AFM(+).

 

Who really thought that it was already meant to become a full hi-fi DCS module? All there was were a certain probability that this aircraft could evolve further in the (probably not too far) future.

 

Today this seems probably not that much probable, yes, with that I would agree.

 

Well, just about half the people who posted there went ahead and called me an idiot, either outright or very badly disguised when I said it was nothing else than irresponsible rumours and nonsense to write that an A-10C level F-15C was about to be released shortly, so at least one or two persons appear to have believed that.

 

 

Note: Not provoking people, that is solely directed at those who were claiming that an A-10C level F-15C, and nothing less, was about to be released as surely as the sun rises in the East. No one else.

[cichlidfan]

Note: Not provoking people, that is solely directed at those who were claiming that an A-10C level F-15C, and nothing less, was about to be released as surely as the sun rises in the East. No one else.

 

If gambling were not 'frowned upon' a lot of money could have been made around here. :D

[Nefron]

It's not a matter of waste' date=' it's a matter of resources and information. Being clickable is the smallest part of ASM. Creating a very well detailed model of AN/APG-63 and the TEWS is going to be extremely complicated, especially due to the lack of data for the latter.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I know, I just asked how much of the systems are still classified in another thread. Since there is enough information to do an F/A-18, I was hoping it is also true for the F-15.

 

If they can properly model the systems, it makes sense for them to do so, since there was a lot of work done on the aircraft, and the Eagle is quite popular as far as the fighters go.

[Scrim]

If gambling were not 'frowned upon' a lot of money could have been made around here. :D

 

That sounds like a business idea...

 

COPYRIGHT

[lunaticfringe]

Creating a very well detailed model of AN/APG-63 and the TEWS is going to be extremely complicated' date=' especially due to the lack of data for the latter.[/quote']

 

The AN/APG-63s modes and functionality can be quite readily found, for the most part. It's actually easier to find material on the later modes (with regards to the software that should be on the version of the -63 we should now be using) than it is with the earlier stuff with mdoes such as RAM. What you're not going to get is the IFF/SNIFF/NCTR stuff, although DCS doesn't really get into this well, to be honest, and quite a bit can be pulled out on the capabilities based on engagement AARs and interviews.

 

TEWS, for the most part, while a seeming black hole, you can derive some aspects from very odd places, such as CBO reports, and simulation modelling over on DTIC. You just have to do a *lot* of homework. Because DCS is never really going to go into hardcore EW/ECM/ECCM modelling by nature of what can be gotten for *everything*, what's more important there is the representations of the threat, and maybe, eventually, some directed jamming, rather than the raw barrier effect we have now.

 

I've expected it to be piecemeal for a while, and continue to do so. The ultimate challenge is the radar model, which is going to be reliant on the quality that comes in with the MiG-21, and the F/A-18. Once that is done, the expanded functionality of the F-15s capabilities can be implemented. But I wouldn't expect it before then, otherwise you're really dealing with two different models and techniques of implementation, when they should be internally consistent.

 

Everything in due time.

[TAW_Blaze]

I'm not expecting it before the Hornet either. :)

[sobek]

The ultimate challenge is the radar model, which is going to be reliant on the quality that comes in with the MiG-21, and the F/A-18.

 

I think that believing that there is "the" radar model might be premature at this point. I doubt that ED will make a radar "core" that handles maxwells equations and people plug the signal processing into like it is for flight models. From my very limited point of view, the more likely approach seems to be to open radar implementation completely up to external parties.

[lunaticfringe]

If that's the case, then color me disappointed. There's a point where both quality in the overall model, and a point towards overhead performance can be driven, by way of having a consistent front on the radar side.

 

I mean, honestly, what's easier- having an ever expanding roster of models in which each aircraft can get inconsistent performance based on resolution, frequency, and power, relative to a third party's ability to tweak, or a standardized engine to drive detection, accessible based on the nature of the respective systems?

 

And let's not forget the fact that a standard model of interaction would make the RWR/ECM/ECCM side of the house easier to construct, with all sorts of interesting secondary effects.

[NineLine]

If that's the case, then color me disappointed. There's a point where both quality in the overall model, and a point towards overhead performance can be driven, by way of having a consistent front on the radar side.

 

I mean, honestly, what's easier- having an ever expanding roster of models in which each aircraft can get inconsistent performance based on resolution, frequency, and power, relative to a third party's ability to tweak, or a standardized engine to drive detection, accessible based on the nature of the respective systems?

 

And let's not forget the fact that a standard model of interaction would make the RWR/ECM/ECCM side of the house easier to construct, with all sorts of interesting secondary effects.

 

We simple dont know though... I see benefits to both sides.

 

It would make sense that certain things are standardized by ED to ensure compatibility in systems... but I dont know how it all works.

Edited April 10, 2014 by NineLine