F-15E?

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

Giving a 3rd party a full flight model is not the same as giving them an API.

 

Also the F-15C is not comparable to a F-15E without CFTs even if you set the weight the same. We may not even have the same engines in the Strike Eagle.

 

The F-15C uses F100-PW-100 or -220 engines. The F-15E uses F100-PW-220 or -229 engines.

 

I am hoping we get the -229 version.

[JumpinK]

What if the RAZBAM-guys do their developing-thing just as the MD-guys did their job on the real F-15 some decades ago?!

I mean...

First there was the F-15. Without CFTs of course. And it had it's own real flight model for sure.

Some time later in development, when the F-15E had been launched, it was still an F-15 but with a 2-seater cockpit (like B/D model) + conformal fuel tanks.

 

To make my point:

It would be more realistic from the developers side to add those CFT's to the flight-model as it was done IRL.

Like F-15 + CFTs = F-15E.

Of course then it would be possible to remove them in DCS, because it would be already properly implemented.

 

Just my weird opinion.

Edited October 5, 2018 by JumpinK
typos

[Tirak]

What if the RAZBAM-guys do their developing-thing just as the MD-guys did their job on the real F-15 some decades ago?!

I mean...

First there was the F-15. Without CFTs of course. And it had it's own real flight model for sure.

Some time later in development, when the F-15E had been launched, it was still an F-15 but with a 2-seater cockpit (like B/D model) + conformal fuel tanks.

 

To make my point:

It would be more realistic from the developers side to add those CFT's to the flight-model as it was done IRL.

Like F-15 + CFTs = F-15E.

Of course then it would be possible to remove them in DCS, because it would be already properly implemented.

 

Just my weird opinion.

 

 

The F-15C is not the F-15E. The two seater F-15C is the F-15D, and the F-15C can actually carry conformal fuel tanks, which is one of the reasons why I assume adding CFTs has drastic affects on a flight model, otherwise the F-15C we already have in game would have the option to add or remove those CFTs.

 

 

In any event, as others have noted in this thread, the Strike Eagle has a different structure to the Eagle, more internal reinforcement to carry more ground attack weapons, as well as different engines. And as others have noted, the CFTs are something of a defining feature of the Strike Eagle. To develop a Strike Eagle without CFTs first and then develop adding CFTs on later would be, in my opinion, backwards.

 

 

Also, as to the matter of just 'adding' CFTs to a flight model, it's not that simple. The flight model is expressed as a mathematical equation, making changes to body lift and how air flow will move around the strike eagle's thicc shapely hips isn't just a matter of bolting them on and letting the current flight model figure out what's going on.

[SinusoidDelta]

Just saw this on another forum (-229’s, no CFT’s)

[JumpinK]

To develop a Strike Eagle without CFTs first and then develop adding CFTs on later would be, in my opinion, backwards.

 

I don't get it, sorry.

Because why would they ever build an aircraft with removable CFT's and then not ever remove them?

I assume, they wouldn't be called CFTs if they had been modeled together with the rest of the airframe and if so they would not be removable then.

 

No offence. Of course i could be very very wrong with my opinion, because I'm not an expert, just a hobby-aviator and a DCS-enthusiast.:smilewink:

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

Just saw this on another forum (-229’s, no CFT’s)

 

I'm really tired of the arguing over CFTs. I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that the Strike Eagle would ever be flown into combat without them by any nation.

 

Find me a picture or video of a Strike Eagle without CFTs in a combat mission or something that isnt something like a demonstration, or test flight.

 

We dont even know if it can carry missiles on the cheek stations without CFTs. I doubt it can frankly.

 

Right now I do not see any reason to implement the added complexity of removable CFTs.

 

Just wait for a full fidelity F-15C.

[JumpinK]

Just saw this on another forum (-229’s, no CFT’s)

 

well...

...to me it seems that this video is the best argument for removable CFTs in DCS. :D

[JumpinK]

I'm really tired of the arguing over CFTs. I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that the Strike Eagle would ever be flown into combat without them by any nation.

 

Find me a picture or video of a Strike Eagle without CFTs in a combat mission or something that isnt something like a demonstration, or test flight.

 

We dont even know if it can carry missiles on the cheek stations without CFTs. I doubt it can frankly.

 

Right now I do not see any reason to implement the added complexity of removable CFTs.

 

Just wait for a full fidelity F-15C.

 

Ok. I'm out. Just one more:

 

F-15E without removable CFT shouldn't be called full fidelity then. because IRL regardless of usage they can be removed!

 

Sorry, i had to.

[SinusoidDelta]

I'm really tired of the arguing over CFTs. I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that the Strike Eagle would ever be flown into combat without them by any nation.

 

Find me a picture or video of a Strike Eagle without CFTs in a combat mission or something that isnt something like a demonstration, or test flight.

 

We dont even know if it can carry missiles on the cheek stations without CFTs. I doubt it can frankly.

 

Right now I do not see any reason to implement the added complexity of removable CFTs.

 

Just wait for a full fidelity F-15C.

 

I really wasn’t trying to argue any further. I thought it was a good video; I think we can agree on that?

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

F-15E without removable CFT shouldn't be called full fidelity then. because IRL regardless of usage they can be removed!

 

By that logic an A-1 Module wouldnt be full fidelity unless you could drop a toilet. In fact no DCS module could be considered Full Fidelity if the bar was set so you could do everything you could IRL. I challenge you to find some evidence to back what you want and address the points I have raised.

 

Find me a picture or video of a Strike Eagle without CFTs in a combat mission or something that isnt something like a demonstration, or test flight and prove that the cheek stations are functional.

[pepin1234]

Exactly, and ED will share it, which is why I don't think that saying "ED won't share their flight model" is a good argument, they probably would but would have a different profit sharing model to reflect the additional work on EDs end, because ED only serves to profit more as people buy more third party modules.

 

 

In any event though, I personally don't think the ED flight model would be accurate for a strike eagle without CFTs. Looking more into it, there have been significant structural changes that occurred and increased weight, I don't believe that an F-15C flight model would be accurate enough to apply, and RAZBAM would have to completely make a whole new flight model. That would be a monumental task and one I don't think they'd do.

 

 

Personally, I don't think CFTs should be removable, not for the reasons that it's not done normally according to doctrine, or that ED would not share their flight model data of the improved F-15C, but because I think the amount of work required to integrate two flight models into a single aircraft, due to the fact that I believe a copied and pasted F-15C flight model wouldn't be realistic enough, is far too much to ask and would both take too long and cost too much, for too little gain.

 

 

Now I could be wrong, it might be as simple as just coding it like a weapon. I woudln't think that'd be the case given how it changes the shape and thus affects the amount of lift the body of the aircraft would generate, but maybe it's as simple as changing a few numbers. If that were the case I'd be fore it's inclusion, but again, I don't think it's that simple and such a complexity offers too little gain in my humble opinion.

 

CFT/WFT fidelity in ED PFM F-15C is a matter of game play. Also I don’t believe the wings stress is 100% implemented for the same reason. I am curious about RAZBAM PFM own made in this regard.

[cypc]

I'm really tired of the arguing over CFTs. I have seen zero evidence to support the idea that the Strike Eagle would ever be flown into combat without them by any nation.

 

D2M for the Mirage was never ever fitted on the C variant, yet we have it, so this argument doesn't hold up for DCS.

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

D2M for the Mirage was never ever fitted on the C variant, yet we have it, so this argument doesn't hold up for DCS.

 

I think it is your argument that is weak, just because we got X for the M2000C doesn't mean we should get Y for the F-15E.

 

The D2M could have been left off of the M2000C and I believe some people would have preferred it that way.

 

Also there is the argument that adding something useful to the jet is more worthwhile than removing a key feature.

 

Nobody here has demonstrated that the Mudhen can mount and operate missiles from the cheek stations under the CFTs. You are asking to get a quasi F-15D rather than a legitimate Mudhen feature.

Edited October 6, 2018 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[JumpinK]

By that logic an A-1 Module wouldnt be full fidelity unless you could drop a toilet. In fact no DCS module could be considered Full Fidelity if the bar was set so you could do everything you could IRL. I challenge you to find some evidence to back what you want and address the points I have raised.

 

Find me a picture or video of a Strike Eagle without CFTs in a combat mission or something that isnt something like a demonstration, or test flight and prove that the cheek stations are functional.

 

I'm just making my own fun out of this thread...

...personally for me it doesn't matter if the F-15E will come with removable CFTs or not.

 

I'm eagerly waiting for my most favourite bird anyway!

 

I don't wanna offend anyone here, but why not think "bigger"?!

 

Meaning, it would be an awesome extra-realistic feature if the CFTs were removable but it is absolutely not necessary in DCS.

 

I'm curious now whether RAZBAM will implement this feature of the Strike Eagle or not.

Edited October 6, 2018 by JumpinK
typos again

[Phantom88]

**Just a Reminder**

 

RAZBAM will be doing a Q&A regarding The upcoming Strike Eagle in next months update video.Submit your questions in the comments of This video.

[Avarien]

Even after submitting my pre-order with the F-14B reveal yesterday, I couldn't help but feel a twinge of jealousy over the perceived detail that HB has poured into the F-14B. I can't help but hearken to the classic quality vs. quantity debate for comparing sim developer companies. Sure, if you're casual gamer just playing through Steam FC3 may be all you need, but for those of us who get off on the 900 page manuals ... those of us who got hooked by the A-10C ask a lot out of a developer. I know this strike eagle project has been in the works a long time. I sure hope we get the systems fidelity and immersion detail on par with HBs tomcat. By the way I for one am much more interested in systems modeling accuracy over super high-res textures, those are just a nice-to-have item. I am cautiously optimistic about Razbams next monthly update.

 

And I do not give a sh*t about removable CFT.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Avarien
spelling

[SDsc0rch]

++

[Vannipo]

Hmm, as I read the title, my first thought was:

 

Oh no, please put all menpower on already existing and started but not yet finished projects.

Please no more additional early asscess aircrafts, before the others are not finished.

 

I have the strange feeling that all of u developers (ED included) should FOCUS on this actual state of DCS and your modules, and finish and optimize it for an awesome experience with less bugs, more FPS, more working systems in the aircrafts, which - JUST work?

 

I just SAY:

How LONG is early access phase in your mind? For me, one year maximum.

 

U guys dont have DEADLINES?

How to handle a business without deadlines?

 

Regards

[Spudknocker]

Hey did you guys see the new Cover Photo on the RAZBAM facebook page?? Looks pretty cool!

 

[Pasquale1986]

**Just a Reminder**

 

RAZBAM will be doing a Q&A regarding The upcoming Strike Eagle in next months update video.Submit your questions in the comments of This video.

 

Is RB planning or at least considering to add multicrew functionality and/or an AI RIO - self developed or licensed (e.g. Jester AI)? If so at what stage we expect that and to what extend?

 

 

thx

[jojo]

There is a big difference between F-15E and F-14

 

 

If they share the workload in the Strike Eagle, it seems that most of the job could be done from the front seat, like a single seat Hornet for instance (radar and targeting pod controls are available on MFD and HOTAS).

 

 

I don't see a F-15E AI WSO as mandatory as an AI RIO for F-14.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool, but it seems to have been a huge task for Heatblur, don't expect it to become standard feature...

Edited October 11, 2018 by jojo

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

I don't see a F-15E AI WSO as mandatory as an AI RIO for F-14.

I'm not seeing it wouldn't be cool, but it seems to have been a huge task for Heatblur, don't expect it to become standard feature...

 

Pretty sure they said on FB that everything can be operated from the front seat. I do agree it would be cool if Heatblur made Jester AI open source for projects like the Mudhen, Cobra, or Hind though. Granted the Mi-24P doesnt seem to have much for the gunner to do. :(

 

That said I dont really expect them to make it "open source" to other 3rd parties at least, just saying it would be cool if they did.

[Cunctator]

There is a video on Youtube in which a reporter sits in the back seat during a F-15E CAS combat mission in Afghanistan.

 

 

An WSO AI would certainly welcomed by me, but I would prefer to have a fully functional Strike eagle first before they start to add features like that.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Cunctator

[blower]

I hope at least we get to have a human WSO sitting back

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

I hope at least we get to have a human WSO sitting back

 

Pretty sure this is the intention.