Question about fidelity / realism

[Hardcard]

Well, this went a bit off topic and even became a bit personal at some points. Hellfire, don't encourage Sova, this isn't the place for an argument about the MiG21 module.

 

Ekg, you wanted to know why people say FC3 isn't as realistic as the rest of DCS modules. Well, people tend to say this because the cockpits of FC3 planes aren't fully interactive. You can only use throttle, stick, pedals, flaps, landing gear, ecm, trim, airbrake, brake, ejection system, arresting hook in the Su33, countermeasures, weapon/radar/ir/nav systems, simplified engine controls, lights, simple comms...and that's about it.

But with the exception of the MiG29 and Su33, all FC3 aircraft have AFM or PFM, so they are simulated in the same detail as the rest of DCS modules in that regard.

 

So, in other words, there are a whole lot less buttons to click in FC3. You don't have to deal with APUs, valves, hydraulic systems, batteries, etc., even though those are still simulated to some extent...they are just automatic, so to speak.

FC3 is a pretty good simulation, but isn't as complete as the rest of DCS modules because there are less systems to deal with.

 

I hope this answers your question.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Hardcard

[JNASova]

Well, this went a bit off topic and even became a bit personal at some points. Hellfire, don't encourage Sova, this isn't the place for an argument about the MiG21 module.

 

Ekg, you wanted to know why people say FC3 isn't as realistic as the rest of DCS modules. Well, people tend to say this because the cockpits of FC3 planes aren't fully interactive. You can only use throttle, stick, pedals, flaps, landing gear, ecm, trim, airbrake, brake, ejection system, arresting hook in the Su33, countermeasures, weapon/radar/ir/nav systems, simplified engine controls, lights, simple comms...and that's about it.

But with the exception of the MiG29 and Su33, all FC3 aircraft have AFM or PFM, so they are simulated in the same detail as the rest of DCS modules in that regard.

 

So, in other words, there are a whole lot less buttons to click in FC3. You don't have to deal with APUs, valves, hydraulic systems, batteries, etc., even though those are still simulated to some extent...they are just automatic, so to speak.

FC3 is a pretty good simulation, but isn't as complete as the rest of DCS modules because there are less systems to deal with.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

Thats right.

[ekg]

Well, this went a bit off topic and even became a bit personal at some points. Hellfire, don't encourage Sova, this isn't the place for an argument about the MiG21 module.

 

Ekg, you wanted to know why people say FC3 isn't as realistic as the rest of DCS modules. Well, people tend to say this because the cockpits of FC3 planes aren't fully interactive. You can only use throttle, stick, pedals, flaps, landing gear, ecm, trim, airbrake, brake, ejection system, arresting hook in the Su33, countermeasures, weapon/radar/ir/nav systems, simplified engine controls, lights, simple comms...and that's about it.

But with the exception of the MiG29 and Su33, all FC3 aircraft have AFM or PFM, so they are simulated in the same detail as the rest of DCS modules in that regard.

 

So, in other words, there are a whole lot less buttons to click in FC3. You don't have to deal with APUs, valves, hydraulic systems, batteries, etc., even though those are still simulated to some extent...they are just automatic, so to speak.

FC3 is a pretty good simulation, but isn't as complete as the rest of DCS modules because there are less systems to deal with.

 

I hope this answers your question.

 

Thanks for summarizing it! :D

 

Even though this isn't FSX I hope they'll consider updating some of these things in the future. Maybe make new "advanced systems" modules for the planes in FC3.

[Pineapple Pete]

Hey, this fun

 

You are mistaken, not everything is simplified, the FMs of the A-10A, Su-25, Su-25T, F-15C and Su-27 are not SFM. In fact the F-15C and Su-27 are using some of the most advanced FMs seen (PFM).

 

I am a noob with DCS and I am thinking of buying FC3. So, what is the meaning of FM's, SFM, and PFM (in the airline world PFM is Pure Friggin Magic -G-Rated version)

Not trying to be a wise guy. I really would like the correct definition of these although I could probably wager good guess.

Many thanks

[cichlidfan]

...what is the meaning of FM's, SFM, and PFM...

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=122801

[Pineapple Pete]

Hi cichlidfan,

Man you know your way around the forum. I really looked around for this but didn't find it. Many thanks.

[Backy 51]

Yeah, that MiG-21 relic is a world beater. In game, the AI MiG-21s have super abilities in close-in knife fights. Unfortunately, the real world does not correlate quite so kindly. The restricted visibility from that cockpit alone is a huge disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun module, but I wouldn't get wrapped around the axle that it is the paragon of realism.

[BravoM5]

Hey guys, I haven't been playing DCS World for very long, so I really don't have as much experience as everyone else here since I don't have all the modules and experience with the various aircraft in the sim.

 

But, anyway I must admit that I prefer the modules with planes that are fully simulated with ASM modelling. I have FC3 and the planes in that module just don't appeal to me that much. There's just a certain joy in being able to flip the switches in the cockpit and manually start your own aircraft, more so when you have the startup sequence memorized, it's just a great feeling. It's a rewarding feeling that no other flight simulation game has given me, I'm not saying that I've played a lot of realistic flight sims, though I have played sims like FSX, X-Plane and, IL-2 COD. However DCS World has stood out from the rest, it's one game that I can justify paying $40-$50 for a single aircraft knowing that the plane I'm buying is going to have nearly all of the systems modeled realistically.

 

So yes, I do think the FC3 planes are of lower fidelity than the rest of the modules for DCS World. At least as far as the aircraft's systems go, personally I prefer to pay the $40-$50 for one highly detailed airplane rather than $40 for several that have automated starting sequences and no interactive cockpits.

[Stuge]

Sorry but that makes it harder not simpler. And the systems are modeled. So yea, it definitely wouldn't be a "simpler, more limited experience than FC3", but rather call it an old airplane that you just don't want to operate with :D

 

Anyway as for FC3, the main problem is the airplanes lack the ASM component. The fact that the systems are simplified may relieve some workload on the pilots indeed, but the flight is the flight (atleast for PFM airplanes... SFM is very weird).

That the missiles are not really realistic is known, especially in the guidance part :lol:

 

Let's put the "complexity" aspect this way:

 

An experienced Mig-21 pilot transitions to the F-15C which he has never flown in combat.

 

Meanwhile in another place, an experienced F-15C pilot transitions to the Mig-21 which he has never flown in combat.

 

Facing a highly skilled adversary of the same aircraft type that they are now flying, in the sim of course, which pilot do you believe has an easier time to adapt to their new aircraft and eventually put up a good fight?

 

I'll leave this open for discussion ;)

[JNASova]

Sorry mate but other than MiG21 being the best the rest of what you say is a load of tosh.

Since I've accustomed myself to flying the MiG21 the tactics and level of application are just the same as I do with FC3. There is very little difference in what you have to do in combat other than the expected more hands on approach of older system modelling. You talk as though the operation of FC aircraft radar etc. is an unrealistic procedure, i'd love to know how you think they're operated in rl, pulleys, pedals and slide rules maybe.

 

If you want to call simplified because of how ED models radar effects, weapons, ECM etc. then those also apply to the MiG21.

 

I hope that someday you will be in a position to have access to military material. Only then you can see how bad things are.

[RoflSeal]

Let's put the "complexity" aspect this way:

 

An experienced Mig-21 pilot transitions to the F-15C which he has never flown in combat.

 

Meanwhile in another place, an experienced F-15C pilot transitions to the Mig-21 which he has never flown in combat.

 

Facing a highly skilled adversary of the same aircraft type that they are now flying, in the sim of course, which pilot do you believe has an easier time to adapt to their new aircraft and eventually put up a good fight?

 

I'll leave this open for discussion ;)

 

Obviously the F-15 pilot transitioning to the MiG-21 will have it harder, not because the aircraft is harder to control in flight, but because situational awareness in all three aspects (visibility, radar, RWR) is much worse, tied in with much worse weapon systems.

 

To fly a MiG-21 for combat is not that much different from the F-15 in terms of what controls you need to map.

 

Axes

Trigger

Weapon Release

Radar cursor (Only Up/Down in case of the MiG)

Lock/Unlock

Turn Radar On/Off (Standby in case of Mig-21)

Countermeasures (With MiG-21 you need to also map the cover for the countermeasures button, alternatively click it before you enter combat)

Weapon Selector (Hardpoint selector in case of MiG-21)

Punch tanks (for F-15 its just one button, for MiG, 2 if you have wing and centerline tanks)

 

 

F-15 Only

Radar mode

Radar range

Radar altitude

 

 

MiG-21 only

Emergency Afterburner

Emergency Air-restart

IR/NEUT/SAR switch

Radar filters

 

Probably missing some combat-related things but you get the point.

 

Obviously the MiG-21 has other things that are simulated that the F-15 doesn't like the navigation equipment. But if you just want to map both aircraft purely for combat, it is not that different, just capabilities are vastly different, in which you will have to use different tactics.

Edited July 19, 2015 by RoflSeal

[Dav IRL]

Sometimes its good too take off the hardcore sim hat and enjoy the flight and combat with less technical cockpit managment.

[Weta43]

We're talking about simulations of modern era fighter jets.It consists of a lot of things. Radars,missile guidance, ECMs, flight model, many restrictions on the use of aircraft depending on the load and atmospheric conditions ...

All things considered, DCS MiG-21 BiS is currently the best module,in my opinion.

If you want to call simplified because of how ED models radar effects, weapons, ECM etc. then those also apply to the MiG21.

In case you missed what Frostie meant, with the exception of the FM, all the things in bold italics in your quote – the things you say are essential to a good sim & what make the MiG-21 stand out from the FC-3 aircraft, are parts of the core DCS world, not the MiG-21 module.

Even looking at the FM, with – for now – the exception of the MiG-29 & Su-33 all the FC-3 aircraft have FM on a par with the MiG-21

You did not do interactive cockpits, even partially....All actions, taking off, turning on radar,search and target lock, weapon usage and landing are made with a pair of keys. Allmost no limitation,no room for error.

 

In reality, to activate some onboard system, a pilot reaches out and flicks one or two switches with their hand – often relying entirely on body memory to find the switch.

To do the same in an FC-3 cockpit, a virtual pilot reaches out and flicks a switch with their hand – often relying entirely on body memory to find the switch (key).

Actually using a clickable pit, the player grabs the mouse, pans their view around the cockpit (& out of the fight) till the switch comes into view, moves the mouse to the correct area (if they’re wearing TIR, concentrates on holding their head still so they can get the cursor over the switch), then clicks the switch.

Of the two scenarios, which is the more realistic ?

The advantage of the interactive cockpit is not that it’s more realistic as such, it’s that it lets you model a greater number of systems without having to rely on memorising 100s of different keystroke combinations.

That said, when it comes to combat in either an FC-3 aircraft or a DCS level aircraft, everything that you need for combat should be set up on your HOTAS, or is a single key action on the keyboard. Once that’s the case, it really makes no difference whether the graphic representation on the screen of a combat system’s switch is clickable or not, because the last thing you want to be doing is hunting head down around the cockpit for a switch.

This is precisely why aircraft have HOTAS – so the pilot doesn’t have to go switch hunting during combat…

I hope that someday you will be in a position to have access to military material. Only then you can see how bad things are.

Nice - the “I have real information you don’t, but I can’t tell you what it is” argument…

[FSKRipper]

I hope that someday you will be in a position to have access to military material. Only then you can see how bad things are.

 

In case you missed what Frostie meant, with the exception of the FM, all the things in bold italics in your quote – the things you say are essential to a good sim & what make the MiG-21 stand out from the FC-3 aircraft, are parts of the core DCS world, not the MiG-21 module.

Even looking at the FM, with – for now – the exception of the MiG-29 & Su-33 all the FC-3 aircraft have FM on a par with the MiG-21

 

 

In reality, to activate some onboard system, a pilot reaches out and flicks one or two switches with their hand – often relying entirely on body memory to find the switch.

To do the same in an FC-3 cockpit, a virtual pilot reaches out and flicks a switch with their hand – often relying entirely on body memory to find the switch (key).

Actually using a clickable pit, the player grabs the mouse, pans their view around the cockpit (& out of the fight) till the switch comes into view, moves the mouse to the correct area (if they’re wearing TIR, concentrates on holding their head still so they can get the cursor over the switch), then clicks the switch.

Of the two scenarios, which is the more realistic ?

The advantage of the interactive cockpit is not that it’s more realistic as such, it’s that it lets you model a greater number of systems without having to rely on memorising 100s of different keystroke combinations.

That said, when it comes to combat in either an FC-3 aircraft or a DCS level aircraft, everything that you need for combat should be set up on your HOTAS, or is a single key action on the keyboard. Once that’s the case, it really makes no difference whether the graphic representation on the screen of a combat system’s switch is clickable or not, because the last thing you want to be doing is hunting head down around the cockpit for a switch.

This is precisely why aircraft have HOTAS – so the pilot doesn’t have to go switch hunting during combat…

 

Nice - the “I have real information you don’t, but I can’t tell you what it is” argument…

 

Nice summary. Would count the Warthog and the 21 to be the most realistic planes, even if snoopy will tell us that the A-10 is only about 80% modelled :megalol:. Thats enough for me btw.

 

I also had access to military knowledge during my carreer and believe me, you don't want all of this modelled. 25% of my time as Link8 operator consisted of troubleshooting connection issues with group members.

Much fun to play this out during a combat mission :music_whistling:. And thats for a system that is established for years...

[JNASova]

Nice post Weta43,without the addition of personal.Now participants of the forum can criticize the work of ED, although not directly insulted by admnistrators of the forum. Evident is a big progress of democracy, and that is very important for further development of DCS. :D

 

Now, about last sentence in your message, the "argument", I am sending a reply in PM.

 

First of all,I never claimed that the missile guidance, radar, ECM... at DCS MiG 21 BiS are better modeled than in FC3.I know DCS MiG 21 BiS is "inside the DCS World frame",and that is the problem.Many things can not be modeled because of this, and DCS progress is very slow.I said that these are all elements that must be modeled in the case of simulation of modern fighter planes, and generally DCS MIG 21 BIS is better. Some thing are more detailed there,more realistic.

Example.

If you forget to turn on fuel pumps in MiG 21 BiS, engine will start.This is 100% realistic.While perform procedure to take of and exit the runway, they will shut down for lack of fuel.If you decide to start the engine and take off immediately (emergency procedures), and the rest of procedures do in the air, it can happen to you that immediately after take-off engine runs out of the fuel and the plane will crash. So what,press ESC,an take another? We dont pay for them. I dont think that way. In FC 3 press two buttons,and job done? Is this simplification?

 

In real life, for some guided missiles, before driving to the runway and take off, power must be on. Otherwise, they may become unusable.The DCS MiG-21bis have interactive cockpit, so that we can obtain such naviku.Možda in the future to be modeled.

 

To use radar,first you must put it on stand by mode,to worms up for few minutes. Sometimes people forget to do this.So you enter in to the dangerous zone and then you realize that you forgot to turn on the radar.

Or thrying to fire and no weapon firing,just klik,klik :).In the midle of the fight.What did I forget now?A lot of place for pilot error. How much planes crashed due to pilot error?But in Fc you just press I key and no need to worry. Is this simplification?

 

Each plane has a different kind of systems. If one is broken, the pilot uses the alternative. But if the pilot does not know wich one ...

This comes to the fore when the plane is damaged in battle. The pilot needs to know wich to system or instrument to turn off, and which to use as an alternative. That could be crucial, will pilot fail to return the damaged plane at the airport or not.

For all this you need to know your plane. Nothing of this in FC 3.

 

Interactive cockpit is very important.It is a prerequisite for detailed system modeling.So it is not everythig in presing buttons,right?

 

On emore example.

S-5 unguided missiles. Using this weapon has limitations.

During the flihgt there is air flow and heating of all the bodies they penetrate through the air at high speed.Excessive heating can cause startup or explosion of gunpowder engines of these rockets.Lets not comment on what kind of problems may cause explosion of the payload under the wing.

So there are limitations:

Air temperature 0°-20°C, speed >900 km/h,time flight not more than 17 minutes.

Air temperature 20°-35°C,speed <900 km/h, time of the flight not more than 20 minutes. Speed >900 km/h - 10minutes flight.

Air temperature 35°-50°C,speed <900 km/h -10 minutes flight. Sped >900 km/h - 5 minutes.

Other weapons have some limitations.Nothing of that in DCS World.

Edited July 21, 2015 by =JNA=Sova

[Frostie]

 

First of all,I never claimed that the missile guidance, radar, ECM... at DCS MiG 21 BiS are better modeled than in FC3.I know DCS MiG 21 BiS is "inside the DCS World frame",and that is the problem.Many things can not be modeled because of this, and DCS progress is very slow.I said that these are all elements that must be modeled in the case of simulation of modern fighter planes, and generally DCS MIG 21 BIS is better. Some thing are more detailed there,more realistic.

Example.

If you forget to turn on fuel pumps in MiG 21 BiS, engine will start.This is 100% realistic.While perform procedure to take of and exit the runway, they will shut down for lack of fuel.If you decide to start the engine and take off immediately (emergency procedures), and the rest of procedures do in the air, it can happen to you that immediately after take-off engine runs out of the fuel and the plane will crash. So what,press ESC,an take another? We dont pay for them. I dont think that way. In FC 3 press two buttons,and job done? Is this simplification??.

That's all good but this is to do with the start up procedure which we've already established is simplified with FC3.

To use radar,first you must put it on stand by mode,to worms up for few minutes. Sometimes people forget to do this.So you enter in to the dangerous zone and then you realize that you forgot to turn on the radar.

Or thrying to fire and no weapon firing,just klik,klik :).In the midle of the fight.What did I forget now?A lot of place for pilot error. How much planes crashed due to pilot error?But in Fc you just press I key and no need to worry. Is this simplification?

 

You're talking about some limitations with the MiG-21 radar not an F-15 radar.

An F-15 has one switch in the cockpit to turn the radar on call it 'I' or 'on'.

 

All actions, taking off, turning on radar,search and target lock, weapon usage and landing are made with a pair of keys. Allmost no limitation,no room for error.

 

Using an F-15 as an example then yes, taking off - because it requires the start up procedure to be correct and - Landing but only because of the simplified navigation system.

But the rest are all pretty much parallel procedures with the real aircraft. Where do you get this complexity to turn on the radar, search, lock and fire from.

 

 

Interactive cockpit is very important.It is a prerequisite for detailed system modeling.So it is not everythig in presing buttons,right?

 

Yes to simulate full system modelling covering the whole spectrum of what the aircraft can do. But for a simulation of combat FC3 doesn't do too bad a job.

[Vitesse2l]

I'd say that FC3 allows the simmer to better play the part of a trained pilot since there's less worry over switches.

 

It doesn't confer any magical ability just allows us to not sweat the small stuff.

 

I love the Mig-21 but it's mouse-clicking (or multi key presses working with a reference card) surely requires more effort than a RL (or FC3) pilot would use purely because of the interface. With practice it's probably easier but there's an extra learning curve that FC3 sidesteps.

 

As for realistic missiles etc, I think it was pretty well explained earlier but one tiny gripe - In the interest of relative performance / behaviour I'd rather all weapons (inc those developed by third parties) were under central control.

[JNASova]

You're talking about some limitations with the MiG-21 radar not an F-15 radar.

An F-15 has one switch in the cockpit to turn the radar on call it 'I' or 'on'.

 

Every system on the plane has a switch on/of. I dont know how else to answer.MiG 21 BiS has three switches on the right verical shelf,plus eight on the central shelf,as you know.That is eleven in total.In FC 3 you have "I".

Are you trying now to claim that F 15 aircraft radar, three generations ahead, has only one? I dont follow,really.

 

Here is one of the pages F15 flight and combat instruction USAF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pa1fy1ixaupdhd6/Page%20for%20ED.png?dl=0

 

 

I understand that you guys at 51-st are serious squadron.In my opinion,the best and only serious in comunity.I understand that you have your own server, you have devoted much time and money into this.To play FC 3 at right way,you need 600€ worth computer,200€ worth monitor,200€ worth joystick, 130€ worth TrackIR...I know it's hard to find justification, to both existing and new members, it was all justified, just so all could get in to the server, press "I" key, and pull the trigger. I am wrong adress for that.

Edited July 22, 2015 by =JNA=Sova

[GGTharos]

You have to know what you're reading first. The F-15 has a 'radar panel'. There are switches there, and they're not used because you can do the vast majority of things you need to by using the HOTAS.

You set those switches when landing so you don't even have to touch them when you start up the aircraft. You certainly won't have to touch them in combat unless you need the special modes, which we don't know how they work anyway.

All the 'standard stuff' that you can do in FC, you can do with HOTAS in RL. So yep, you have the 'I' key to bring the radar out of standby ... and you have the 'switch' to enter TWS, another to control AZ setting (shouldn't need it, can use AZ bumping in RL), etc.

In fact, the stuff that's missing would just make the F-15 more deadly ... even if you only used the same stuff that's in FC3 - so in effect, complexity of use in combat would stay similar, but lethality would increase.

Edited July 22, 2015 by GGTharos

[pepin1234]

I think FC3 is becoming a very important module after the PFM improvement, not yet perfect because is still in developed the F-15 Flight model as well the Su-27 one. When you add the Mig-29, plus PFM then you are getting there a very complex simulator. DCS World 2 add more plus to this module. I am curious with the communication improvements, I wish a communication radio improvement close to the real one, but dont know if this is possible or maybe ED have another plan for singles modules much more complex of these birds.

[Nerd1000]

You have to know what you're reading first. The F-15 has a 'radar panel'. There are switches there, and they're not used because you can do the vast majority of things you need to by using the HOTAS.

You set those switches when landing so you don't even have to touch them when you start up the aircraft. You certainly won't have to touch them in combat unless you need the special modes, which we don't know how they work anyway.

All the 'standard stuff' that you can do in FC, you can do with HOTAS in RL. So yep, you have the 'I' key to bring the radar out of standby ... and you have the 'switch' to enter TWS, another to control AZ setting (shouldn't need it, can use AZ bumping in RL), etc.

In fact, the stuff that's missing would just make the F-15 more deadly ... even if you only used the same stuff that's in FC3 - so in effect, complexity of use in combat would stay similar, but lethality would increase.

 

I would say that in the hands of the average FC3 pilot the F-15 would have roughly the same level of lethality. Few pilots really know how to use the radar modes that are already available (I don't think I've ever been engaged by an F-15 using TWS in multi-player), let alone the specialized niche modes that a fully modeled plane offers.

 

What really makes the F-15 deadly is its forgiving flight characteristics and extremely capable missiles. Those two together let you get away with mistakes that would kill a Flanker, let alone a MiG-21. Don't take that as a criticism of the plane or its modeling, it just means that McDonnell-Douglas did their job right.

[Frostie]

I would say that in the hands of the average FC3 pilot the F-15 would have roughly the same level of lethality. Few pilots really know how to use the radar modes that are already available (I don't think I've ever been engaged by an F-15 using TWS in multi-player)

 

I don't know where you've been flying but I find the total opposite to be true, F-15 pilots not using TWS is very rare. I think you're doing a bit of stereotyping, lower fidelity planes don't equal lower fidelity pilots.

 

I don't think you realise how much it takes to be proficient in FCs F-15. The parts of the radar which are not fully modeled such as track history is instead done in the average FC3 pilots head, other features missing are just extra modes such as super search and hdtws to add to the several modes that are already available or alternate search patterns, why you think having a few extra modes over the so many already available are not going to be used by these pilots is a strange one. Another addition thats not in is bar scan selection that is just an extension from azimuth and elevation in operation, the current one is set at 4 bar, without the option to set 2 or 6 that is all.

 

Back in FC1 controlling TWS with the bandit locked required you to manually adjust elevation to save losing the target, the amount of extra work that goes into flying FC aircraft is lost on some and not only that they face opposition that love to hide and secretly track them and have had plenty of practice in dodging all manner of attacks. Adding more of the features to the radar is for more automation not confusion because with regards to FC radar everything is already there bar some bells and whistles.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Frostie

[Nerd1000]

I don't know where you've been flying but I find the total opposite to be true, F-15 pilots not using TWS is very rare. I think you're doing a bit of stereotyping, lower fidelity planes don't equal lower fidelity pilots.

 

I don't think you realise how much it takes to be proficient in FCs F-15. The parts of the radar which are not fully modeled such as track history is instead done in the average FC3 pilots head, other features missing are just extra modes such as super search and hdtws to add to the several modes that are already available or alternate search patterns, why you think having a few extra modes over the so many already available are not going to be used by these pilots is a strange one. Another addition thats not in is bar scan selection that is just an extension from azimuth and elevation in operation, the current one is set at 4 bar, without the option to set 2 or 6 that is all.

 

Back in FC1 controlling TWS with the bandit locked required you to manually adjust elevation to save losing the target, the amount of extra work that goes into flying FC aircraft is lost on some and not only that they face opposition that love to hide and secretly track them and have had plenty of practice in dodging all manner of attacks. Adding more of the features to the radar is for more automation not confusion because with regards to FC radar everything is already there bar some bells and whistles.

 

I didn't mean to imply that lower fidelity planes = lower pilot quality. As a matter of fact a lot of the FC3 fighter guys are way better than I'll ever even hope to be: when I try to go toe-to-toe with an 'average' F-15 pilot he usually wipes the floor with me in seconds, which is why so far I've stuck to sneaking past them and clubbing helpless A-10s. Those extra radar modes would be helpful for finding and attacking enemies without a doubt. That said, in my opinion the F-15's excellent flight performance and superior missiles are more important than the finer points of its radar capabilities when it comes to success in-game.

 

As for the TWS, my comments were based on my personal experience on the 104th, which is that I almost always get a lock warning from the RWR before attacking F-15s launch their BVR missiles.

 

AFAIK a shot using TWS doesn't produce a lock warning on the RWR until the AMRAAM goes active. When I get locked in the MiG-21 I usually respond with an immediate dive towards terrain masking- If the lock was a result of a slammer going pitbull I would be dead long before I got into cover, hence my observation that most F-15s don't seem to use TWS, at least when they have only one enemy plane on their scope.

[winchesterdelta1]

All the pilots i fly with on the 104th use TWS. I even actively ask them or confirm with new pilots on Team Speak to use it. But engaging MIG-21 is sometimes different. Because when you see him he is most of the time very close and hard to keep lock in TWS. So i switch to vertical scan within 10 NM. Also MIG-21 can for some reason easily defeat AIM-120C. Probably because lower radar signature (don't quote me on this). So if i see a MIG-21 i try to shoot it with AIM7 or guns. First i track it in TWS not to scare it, and when close switch to STT or vertical scan to get that Sparrow going.

[Frostie]

Yes as WD says in close combat it is not a good place to use TWS even with it not suffering the prediction delay/error and smaller scan pattern of the real limitations of TWS. Unless they have already acquired the bandit from range and are continuing the attack, to start looking for a pop up close with TWS is not good. Vertical, Flood and Bore modes are far more effective for finding surprise targets when they come within 20km in mountainous areas especially when they have a 'U' on the RWR.