F-15 - share your opinions

[aimmaverick]

When I fly F-15 I have a feeling it is too maneuverable at lower altitudes, its unpowered especialy at higher altitudes where it should dominate. Here is slow and unagile despite this is the area that it should feel home the most. Well my opinion is based from airshow videos seeing F-15 perform. Ofcourse the area where is lacks most is the avionics. Lack of air-air modes, improper current modes which are undermodelled... and very unreliable and vulnereble to ground clutter radar. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IT GOES BLIND AFTER BANDIT BROKE THE LOCK. Then its very hard to redetect him. Amongs other things it lacks datalink, advanced IFF and possibly other stuff I dont know. What are your impressions? Is current situation representative of the real thing?

 

PS: Lockon simulates a combination of apg-63 and apg-70 radar right? So it should have navigation like in su-27 with waypoints on radar display,etc...

[GGTharos]

... too maneuverable? It's exactly as maneuverable as it should be.

[Pilotasso]

He complaints its too manueverable down low but too slugish up high.

 

He is not aware that the measurement of manueverability at high altitues is made by how much degraded it is due to thin air, and that "it dominates high" is a relative statement, because it dominates when compared to other sircraft with heavier wing loading wich are even worse.

[504 Wolverine]

Aimmaverick complaining, now theres a new one. ;) :megalol:

[Kula66]

Don't get me started!

 

* Its climb rate is undermodelled ... from what I've seen at shows.

* Its radar is poorly modelled ... missing key modes/features and TWS has been broken in the last patch.

* It has no Nav mode modelled ...

* It's missiles are dumber than dumber ...

* Its key turning speed seems to bring on blackout ...

* Cockpit visiblity is not as good as RL ...

* No idea about manueverability - never flown one!

 

And given LO claims to be the best A2A flight sim ... its a bit sad that there seems no commitment to fix it - great shame.

[aimmaverick]

He complaints its too manueverable down low but too slugish up high.

 

He is not aware that the measurement of manueverability at high altitues is made by how much degraded it is due to thin air, and that "it dominates high" is a relative statement, because it dominates when compared to other sircraft with heavier wing loading wich are even worse.

 

Pilotaso you dont have to be arrogant like that. I know a plane is much less maneuverable a high altitudes due to thin atmosphere and needs greater speed to turn but as you said, F-15 should dominate here COMPARED to other aircraft.

Your statement perfectly resembles what i had in mind. And btw this is supposed to be a constructive discussion to accept other members opininon not starting a flame war. Again this is just my impression, doesnt meen to be like IRL. If F-15 is so maneuverable IRL than Im positively surprised since F-15 is my favourite fighter.

[iVIPER21]

 

I'd say lock on simulates the flight performance of the real F-15C very well (compared to the figures in the real Dash 1 manual). There's always room for improvement of course - like AFM. Avionics/Weapons Systems are another story and can only be simulated to a certain degree due to classified info limitations and other things in that area. On a side note - and not to hijack the thread - has anyone noticed that IRL most US aircraft release one flare at a time and not two at the same time like in the game?

[dynamocl]

I must be the odd one out. I am not a pilot, and I have no real idea of how the aircraft modelled in the game compares with the real thing. Obviously you guys do, so I feel left out.

 

I just play the game for what it is, I know things ar enot like this is real life. Real life isn't fair and the odds are not always stacked in your favour. However, I don;t complain, I just get on and deal with what I have against what life throws at me. I do the same in lockon, guys stop moaning,

a) I saracastaclly pointed out earlier, you don't "really" know how these things work,

b) a 100% realsitic model is not possible at the moment

c) Deal with these little short comings, be happy with what you have, neither sides are perfect.

 

I know we always want better and better, but there comes a point when too much is too much, please just give it a rest.

 

(sat down waiting for some of you to come back and attack, even though I didnt mean to attack/upset any of you)

[mikoyan]

We all need a ride in the f-15, su-27, mig-29 to see if lock-on is correct , lets send a request to the airforce !:pilotfly:

[mikoyan]

yeah guys stop that actitude , if the realism is the isue lets take a look at fs-2004 FM (THE MOST POPULAR SIM, but in my opinion not very realistic, unless you donwload or buy :doh: some addons)

[D-Scythe]

 

The max speed is not entirely correct. Notice that the real F-15C's max speed seems to hit a brick wall at Mach 2.3+. That's because sustained periods above Mach 2.3+ may cause some structural damage to the airframe. It's an airframe limit, not a speed limit. The F-15 (in the right configuration of course) can go faster; absolute speed is certainly greater than Mach 2.4 if you extrapolate the graph a bit.

 

Certainly, the F-15 can go faster than Mach 2.3 between 36K and 50K, and in combat, given the right circumstances (running away from MiGs, full burner, high alt) I'd imagine that there would be no qualms for an Eagle driver to make short sprints above Mach 2.3.

 

In Lock On, between 38K and 50K, it looks to me that the F-15 is a bit underpowered. There no "brick wall" effect (which means all speeds indicated is probably absolute max speed). So the real F-15, even limited to Mach 2.3+, can fly faster than a Lock On F-15 with no limits.

 

Conversely though, you can see that Lock On's F-15 performs better than the actual F-15 below angels 35.

[GGTharos]

Note that this is the F-15A manual.

 

It is entirely possible that the F-15C has greater static thrust (ie. non afterburning) even though the max thrust is lower, and thus might perform in exactly this manner in real life in the lower altitude regime.

 

 

This type of enhancement is what the A-10C is going to receive ... the max thrust isn't increasing, but the available thrust at a given altitude is, which will solve many problems for this aircraft.

[D-Scythe]

Note that this is the F-15A manual.

 

It is entirely possible that the F-15C has greater static thrust (ie. non afterburning) even though the max thrust is lower, and thus might perform in exactly this manner in real life in the lower altitude regime.

 

 

This type of enhancement is what the A-10C is going to receive ... the max thrust isn't increasing, but the available thrust at a given altitude is, which will solve many problems for this aircraft.

 

Yeah, I know, but from what I understand the F100-PW-220 in the C is not all that different from the -100 in the A in terms of engine performance, but featured much greater reliability. I know that the PW-229 in the F-15E produces (comparitively speaking) much greater performance at lower altitudes than the previous -100 and 220 engines.

[GGTharos]

True indeed.

[Olgerd]

PS: Lockon simulates a combination of apg-63 and apg-70 radar right? So it should have navigation like in su-27 with waypoints on radar display,etc...

 

I wish to have it too. The second "clickable and pretty assurate" cockpit is in the progress right now (few monthes already). The third one (I hope) will be started in a half of an year. I am sorry, I may not yet to name the vehicles. The official announcement will be made.

[Cobra360]

I wish to have it too. The second "clickable and pretty assurate" cockpit is in the progress right now (few monthes already). The third one (I hope) will be started in a half of an year. I am sorry, I may not yet to name the vehicles. The official announcement will be made.

Good to hear. Thats about 13,000lbs of JP4 on the fire right there. I'm off to get the popcorn.:D

[GGTharos]

Good news :D

[Pilotasso]

Pilotaso you dont have to be arrogant like that. I know a plane is much less maneuverable a high altitudes due to thin atmosphere and needs greater speed to turn but as you said, F-15 should dominate here COMPARED to other aircraft.

Your statement perfectly resembles what i had in mind. And btw this is supposed to be a constructive discussion to accept other members opininon not starting a flame war. Again this is just my impression, doesnt meen to be like IRL. If F-15 is so maneuverable IRL than Im positively surprised since F-15 is my favourite fighter.

 

No arrogance intended, just stating facts. I just thought strange that you were surprised by the F-15's lack of manueverability up high wich for me was to be expected.

[Cobra360]

It's ment to be in it's element up high due to it's massive wings.

[Pilotasso]

yeah, but whats the issue here is that it will be slugguish, just not so much than others.

[GGTharos]

Maneuverability up high is not quite well modlled, I -think-, but i may easily be wrong.

 

Maneuverability is in general a function of airspeed. At 300kts IAS, there shouldn't be a whole lot of sluggishness.

[rlogue]

Maneuverability up high is not quite well modlled, I -think-, but i may easily be wrong.

 

Maneuverability is in general a function of airspeed. At 300kts IAS, there shouldn't be a whole lot of sluggishness.

 

This is purely speculation ... but my guess is that the maneuverability isn't the problem, maybe the engines are a little underpowered at altitude, or too much drag at altitude ? Seems to me to be a power related problem.

[D-Scythe]

But the air is much, much thinner at 40+K ft than at 10K ft. Shouldn't the typical control surfaces on an airplane be much less effective as a result?

 

Still, IMO, LOMAC's F-15 (actually, the Su-27 too, from what I remember) could use with a bit more lift and the F-15C alone a bit more thrust. In LOMAC, the F-15 seems to model the airframe speed limit as the absolute speed limit, it seems. The sluggishness should be there, I think, as well as decreased maneuverability, but the Eagle should be better off than most other fighters in this respect due to its favorable wing area (plus its body which also generates some lift) to weight ratio.

[GGTharos]

Yes, there appears to be some sort of power related problem; that is one thing.

 

What I mean to say is that the 15 shouldn't be rolling like a stuck pig when doing 300-400kts at 40k. Airspeed is the factor that affects your roll rates etc. The air is thinner, but due to your speed, much of it passes over your control surfaces.

 

Perhaps compression effects can cause issues there though, this is really pure speculation on my part here, I don't know what happens under those circumstances.

[Allochtoon]

One thing that bothers me is that people are basing their judgements on performances thew saw on an airshow.