F-15E?

[Avarien]

What I find most reasonable to do to satisfy every part is, being able to retire the CFTs for people that want to do so, and to give an option on servers or on the mission creator to block that capability on servers that dont want the CFTs removed for balance purposes.

 

No. Just stop, please.

[cypc]

Well, the flight model is not a simple plug and play thing. It would take quite some extra work for the developers to have switchable 3D models, textures, somewhat different flight models, support different weapon attachment points, etc. and for what purpose exactly? So someone can experiment with a USAF F-15E in a way it's never flown?

 

Ultimately, it's up to the developers, but it seems a bit far fetched to expect them going through all this for such little gain.

 

It was done for the external hardpoints of the Huey and Mi-8, so why not on an F-15E?

[blower]

I understand you. But some people think that’s absurd because CFT on F-15E aren’t just for extra fuel. These are the hard points for offensive weapons, being AA or AG, most of the ordonnance is carried on the CFT, excepted the 2000lbs class bombs.

 

I get your point on that, to be honest I dont mind at all, I would prefer a module as realistic as possible but I get that removing the CFTs would make the Strike part on the name useless.

[jojo]

Also the FM is a very valid point.

 

 

From my understanding, the fuel tank option wouldn't be accurate enough from FM point of view.

 

 

So with or without CFT would mean 2 different FM to code.

But maybe I'm wrong...

[blkspade]

Also the FM is a very valid point.

 

 

From my understanding, the fuel tank option wouldn't be accurate enough from FM point of view.

 

 

So with or without CFT would mean 2 different FM to code.

But maybe I'm wrong...

 

It should be literally no different than any other stores effecting flight performance. So they should be able to model it once, and the presence or absence of CFTs result in a static change.

[SinusoidDelta]

Well, the flight model is not a simple plug and play thing. It would take quite some extra work for the developers to have switchable 3D models, textures, somewhat different flight models, support different weapon attachment points, etc. and for what purpose exactly? So someone can experiment with a USAF F-15E in a way it's never flown?

 

Ultimately, it's up to the developers, but it seems a bit far fetched to expect them going through all this for such little gain.

 

i think this is the best argument for permanent/non-removable CFTs i've seen yet

 

 

Yet if you look at the F-15E -1 perf charts, it contains level flight envelope, level flight acceleration, and sustained level turns without CFT’s and explicitly says “Data Basis: Flight Test”. :dunno:

Edited October 4, 2018 by SinusoidDelta

[RShackleford]

Doctrine =/= Capability.

 

 

Just because they don't do it doctrinally, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of doing what is being asked. F-16s will almost never fly without two wing tanks. Do we forbid players from being able to remove them from the aircraft?

 

They do fly F-16s without externals very often in training because it is far easier to do than taking CFTs off and it is good for the F-16s training to BFM. First thing the F-16 will do in the merge is punch the tanks, so makes sense to train in BFM without them.

 

It should be literally no different than any other stores effecting flight performance. So they should be able to model it once, and the presence or absence of CFTs result in a static change.

 

It actually alters the performance a lot more than just a bomb or missile on the jet. Affects lift on the jet in a much different way than stores do and it causes all sorts of small instability nuances to the flight characteristics.

[Avarien]

They do fly F-16s without externals very often in training because it is far easier to do than taking CFTs off and it is good for the F-16s training to BFM. First thing the F-16 will do in the merge is punch the tanks, so makes sense to train in BFM without them.

 

 

 

It actually alters the performance a lot more than just a bomb or missile on the jet. Affects lift on the jet in a much different way than stores do and it causes all sorts of small instability nuances to the flight characteristics.

 

I believe it directly effects the parasitic (form) drag, which varies based on altitude (or more correctly, based on air density, which is also effected by temperature, pressure, moisture content). Also the mach shock wave will change [with] the form.

 

How do these developers create their flight models? Is it a CFD simulation, or by using historical flight test data (or both)? Is each piece of ordnance just assigned a drag penalty?

Is there any tweaking in different conditions of flight? Without a full range of flight test data, any simulations speculative, and at the mercy of whatever assumptions are made.

 

What is the advantage to even discussing no CFT on the strike eagle if it is never practically employed? Certainly trying to use this as a technique to build some balance into multiplayer seems a little silly.

 

I'd be more interested in an accurate flight model that is most representative of the actual aircraft used in service, and as full fidelity of systems simulation as possible, but that's just me.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Avarien
grammar

[Vilab]

a F-15-E without CFT is just like a F-15-C, which FM is already modeled…

 

tweak weight, and inertia, and it is done.

[SDsc0rch]

negative

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Rainmaker]

a F-15-E without CFT is just like a F-15-C, which FM is already modeled…

 

tweak weight, and inertia, and it is done.

 

Or not...

[Banzaiib]

a F-15-E without CFT is just like a F-15-C, which FM is already modeled…

 

tweak weight, and inertia, and it is done.

 

I know you guys are saying "no" to this, but he's not that far off. The PFM for the F-15C is very well done and could pretty easily be tweaked by RAZBAM. They will not have to start from scratch with the F-15E flight model. If they did, you wouldn't see it this decade.

[jojo]

I know you guys are saying "no" to this, but he's not that far off. The PFM for the F-15C is very well done and could pretty easily be tweaked by RAZBAM. They will not have to start from scratch with the F-15E flight model. If they did, you wouldn't see it this decade.

 

F-15C AFM is Belsimtek’s work. It’s unlikely they will just give it to Razbam.

[GGTharos]

Anything's possible, just maybe not so likely. I wouldn't expect the F-15E without CFT to behave like a 15C, much the same as a 15D doesn't behave the same.

[Tirak]

F-15C AFM is Belsimtek’s work. It’s unlikely they will just give it to Razbam.

 

 

BelSimTek no longer exists, they are a part of ED now.

[jojo]

BelSimTek no longer exists, they are a part of ED now.

 

And do you think their previous work became public domain/ royalties free ? :music_whistling:

[Tirak]

And do you think their previous work became public domain/ royalties free ? :music_whistling:

 

 

I think their work will be provided to third party developers in the same way that ED has provided things like the radar code to other third party developers. Since ED makes a percentage based on what modules sell, they have no incentive to keep it to themselves when dealing with their registered third parties.

[jojo]

I think their work will be provided to third party developers in the same way that ED has provided things like the radar code to other third party developers. Since ED makes a percentage based on what modules sell, they have no incentive to keep it to themselves when dealing with their registered third parties.

 

What radar code ?

[RShackleford]

a F-15-E without CFT is just like a F-15-C, which FM is already modeled…

 

tweak weight, and inertia, and it is done.

 

Maybe. It could be an easy "use the same lift and drag models, just add weight due to the increased empty weight without" if that is how the flight of the C is modeled. If it is based more on performance charts, then probably a no go. With AFM/PFM I feel like it is likely more the former but I have no idea how the AFM/PFM actually work lol.

 

Anything's possible, just maybe not so likely. I wouldn't expect the F-15E without CFT to behave like a 15C, much the same as a 15D doesn't behave the same.

 

This goes the other way of how PFM might be, which again, idk how it works. If simply changing the model to a 2-seater requires completely different modeling, high likelihood the F-15E will not have a non-cft version due to even more changes from the D model. Maybe years after the product is fully developed it could happen.

[Tirak]

What radar code ?

 

 

Yes, I know you've been paying attention to RAZBAM's development so I know you know that one of the main reasons why the NA came before the + Harrier was because ED still hadn't released their take on how to do ground radar. Despite the fact that even the Community A-4E project has a functional ground radar. ED shares systems data with third parties, otherwise RAZBAM would have to build their own like HeatBlur did.

[jojo]

It’s only assumptions from my part, be seeing how things go, I think the radar code ED shares with 3rd parties is of low level.

There is a lot of work left to the 3rd party to code an operational radar (antenna stabilisation, TWS, STT, AG radar telemetry functions...).

 

And I don’t have Hornet module, but from reported bug, it seems that ED have run into the same problems has Razbam at the beginning, and that’s just the AA radar.

 

I don’t know how Heatblur (Viggen) or A-4E team did for AG radar.

 

But there is still no AG radar on Hornet, and that’s far more critical than for Mirage 2000C.

So I assume Heatblur code, or A4 team code isn’t used by ED.

 

So functions code isn’t transferred from one team to another. There is surely intellectual property involved.

 

Yet from time to time, ED has to modify DCS World base code to allow to code some things that weren’t possible before.

 

Don’t quote me, this is guess work.

Edited October 5, 2018 by jojo

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

I would guess they are waiting for some sort of API for the ground radar rather than just something they can copy paste into the jet from ED. Using the API probably means fewer bug issues in the future and is most certainly easier than developing the ground radar from scratch.

 

I am pretty sure though not certain that the A-4 mod ground radar uses raycasting on the terrain to get a simple radar return. I imagine this is not terribly difficult to do. But I think there is merit in waiting for the ground radar API from ED which will likely include this as well as more advanced functionality.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[jojo]

I would guess they are waiting for some sort of API for the ground radar rather than just something they can copy paste into the jet from ED. Using the API probably means fewer bug issues in the future and is most certainly easier than developing the ground radar from scratch.

 

I am pretty sure though not certain that the A-4 mod ground radar uses raycasting on the terrain to get a simple radar return. I imagine this is not terribly difficult to do. But I think there is merit in waiting for the ground radar API from ED which will likely include this as well as more advanced functionality.

 

Yes, Razbam already said they are waiting for proper API.

[blkspade]

They do fly F-16s without externals very often in training because it is far easier to do than taking CFTs off and it is good for the F-16s training to BFM. First thing the F-16 will do in the merge is punch the tanks, so makes sense to train in BFM without them.

 

 

 

It actually alters the performance a lot more than just a bomb or missile on the jet. Affects lift on the jet in a much different way than stores do and it causes all sorts of small instability nuances to the flight characteristics.

 

What's I'm saying is that a single core flight model would still be appropriate. It doesn't matter if its however much more than those, as its still just plus or minus this or that from a base configuration. It's still just a digital approximation of behavioral changes.

[Tirak]

Yes, Razbam already said they are waiting for proper API.

 

 

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.