New to FC3: What is simplified in the F-15C over DCS?

[Jamesp1]

Hi,

 

As the F-15C has a Nevada campaign I thought I'd buy it as a way to motivate me to give FC3 a go.

 

Now I've got it though I'm unsure how complex to expect a simplified version of such a modern aircraft to be: Is this intended as a game or a simulation?

 

I'll have a go at a training missions later, but taking the F-15C as a specific example, what simplification does it have over a DCS module?

[Avantar]

First of all it lacks clickable cockpit. After that follows simple startup, simplified radio (no frequecies of any sort), generally speaking anything that would require complex instrument interactions is missing or simplified (ILS arfields are chosen as waypoints, not freqs for example).

Having said all that you have nice HUD with different modes, radar working in multitude of modes, with antenna elevation and range settings operational, very nice flight model, different weapons with different characteristics - not that simple at all.

[GGTharos]

As said above, mostly the navigation and radio systems.

 

The combat portion of it isn't really simplified compared to what you'll find in a DCS module, at least for now.

 

I'll have a go at a training missions later, but taking the F-15C as a specific example, what simplification does it have over a DCS module?

[DarkFire]

Hi,

 

As the F-15C has a Nevada campaign I thought I'd buy it as a way to motivate me to give FC3 a go.

 

Now I've got it though I'm unsure how complex to expect a simplified version of such a modern aircraft to be: Is this intended as a game or a simulation?

 

I'll have a go at a training missions later, but taking the F-15C as a specific example, what simplification does it have over a DCS module?

 

I'd say very much a simulation. The flight model for example has been verified by actual Eagle drivers, so in that respect I don't think there's anything available for PC outside of an actual USAF trainer that models the flight characteristics as accurately as DCS does. Same for the other aircraft that have professional or advanced flight models.

[Jamesp1]

Thanks guys - went to have a look at training missions yesterday but only found them for the SU27.

 

Then tried to play some training missions for the Mig-21bis and none of those worked.

 

Should I just use youtube to learn how to fly these things?

[DarkFire]

Thanks guys - went to have a look at training missions yesterday but only found them for the SU27.

 

Then tried to play some training missions for the Mig-21bis and none of those worked.

 

Should I just use youtube to learn how to fly these things?

 

YMMV of course, but the procedure I always try to use is this:

 

1. Build a mission where you start in the air. Fly around for a bit to get a feel for how the aircraft flies. Use this sort of mission as a sort of 'incentive flight.'

 

2. Read the manual. Read it again. Then read it again. And again, absorbing each section as I go and if necessary have the sim running so I can test things on the aircraft as I read.

 

3. Take things slowly and one step at a time. Learn and practice every particular procedure and facet of the aircraft systems before moving on to the next thing.

 

4. After you're satisfied with a basic proficiency level, go back to brush up on the manual covering whatever you feel might be your weak points.

 

5. Practice, practice, practice. DCS is very much a sim that rewards patient, long-term time and effort invested in learning and practising everything.

 

Given that a conversion course for a particular aircraft for a real air force pilot can be anything from 20 - 100 hours, assume that the same sort of time investment will be necessary to achieve a basic operational capability in whatever aircraft you chose, and then assume the usual 1,000 hours for professional level employment. As an example, I currently have just over 50 hours in the Su-27 between DCS 1.5 and 2.0. I'd rate myself a very good pilot but a beginner at combat employment.

 

Perseverance is the key. Time and effort invested will pay off. Take things steadily and when things come together the feeling of reward will be immense.

[Bearfoot]

I've wondered about this, too. Apart from navigation, comms, etc. that others have pointed out, there is:

 

(1) Weapon mechanization. E.g., you do not need to cool the seeker heads of your heater. Don't think that uncaging is modeled as well (could be wrong about this)? Just select and fire! Basing this on my experience with Falcon, so comparison may not be valid. Would love to hear from someone who knows better.

 

(2) I am no expert, but it seems to me that the A2A radar is simplified, at least, as compared to Falcon: fewer modes, and less submodes. Of course, the DCS F-15 as PRF, which (IIRC), Falcon does not? Either way, as above, would love to hear from someone with RL knowledge/experience

 

(3) IFF is vastly simplified, to the point of arcade-like cartoon. See M2000C for comparison.

 

(4) Jamming. No idea how this works in RL, but I think not like the way it is modeled. Again, I have no first or even second hand knowledge. Just speculating based on: how can an platform use its radar set to jam a frequency yet still continue to transmit and receive signals with the same radar set?

[Frostie]

I've wondered about this, too. Apart from navigation, comms, etc. that others have pointed out, there is:

 

(1) Weapon mechanization. E.g., you do not need to cool the seeker heads of your heater. Don't think that uncaging is modeled as well (could be wrong about this)? Just select and fire! Basing this on my experience with Falcon, so comparison may not be valid. Would love to hear from someone who knows better.

 

(2) I am no expert, but it seems to me that the A2A radar is simplified, at least, as compared to Falcon: fewer modes, and less submodes. Of course, the DCS F-15 as PRF, which (IIRC), Falcon does not? Either way, as above, would love to hear from someone with RL knowledge/experience

 

(3) IFF is vastly simplified, to the point of arcade-like cartoon. See M2000C for comparison.

 

(4) Jamming. No idea how this works in RL, but I think not like the way it is modeled. Again, I have no first or even second hand knowledge. Just speculating based on: how can an platform use its radar set to jam a frequency yet still continue to transmit and receive signals with the same radar set?

 

1. Not sure what you're generalising here apart from uncaging the seeker, the simple process is automatic in FC.

 

2. I'm no expert either but AFAIK there are a couple of modes missing that are exclusive to the F-15 which is not apparent with Falcon those being Super search and Sniff mode, other than that the lack of bar scan selection is missing, instead of a choice of 2,4,6 or 8 you're stuck in 4 bar, the TWS has a high data rate as well as normal mode, in game I believe there is no rate and it is real time which is better than either mode. Also there is a lack of contact history. The majority of modes are there or thereabouts. The apg-68 and 63 are two very different sets so features shouldn't really be compared.

 

3. IFF modeling is an issue whatever simulator you fly, not solely an FC problem.

 

4. The aircraft in FC use seperate jamming systems that are either built on or attached externally, the radar is a seperate system.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Frostie

[winchesterdelta1]

(2) I am no expert, but it seems to me that the A2A radar is simplified, at least, as compared to Falcon: fewer modes, and less submodes. Of course, the DCS F-15 as PRF, which (IIRC), Falcon does not? Either way, as above, would love to hear from someone with RL knowledge/experience

 

There is somewhere a post from GGTaros with a list of 22 missing radar features for the F-15.

[Bearfoot]

 

 

I was responding to the OP's question about how FC aircraft (and the F-15C in particular) is unrealistic. I did not mean to imply that I did not actually enjoy flying these aircraft, nor that I thought that their simulation had no merits :)

 

1. Not sure what you're generalising here apart from uncaging the seeker, the simple process is automatic in FC.

 

And that's why it is unrealistic. The lack of uncaging is simplification. The lack of cooling is also a simplification. Both simplifications significantly simplify things. Both make the F-15C weapons mechanization of heaters unrealistic.

 

3. IFF modeling is an issue whatever simulator you fly, not solely an FC problem.

 

Mostly true, but I was not answering the question "In what ways are the FC aircraft unrealistic compared to other desktop consumer simulators?" but rather "In what ways are FC aircraft unrealistic?". Of course, even if I was trying to answer the first question, the DCS Mirage 2000C has set the bar on this one for desktop consumer simulators.

 

4. The aircraft in FC use seperate jamming systems that are either built on or attached externally, the radar is a seperate system.

 

Yes, and this, I think is unrealistic? I could be wrong ...

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bearfoot

[Bearfoot]

1. Not sure what you're generalising here apart from uncaging the seeker, the simple process is automatic in FC.

 

Also, while the cooling process adds to the planning and workload (i.e., cannot just switch to heaters and fire; need to plan this ahead of time), I find the uncaging process actually useful tactically in the F-16 (as simulated by Falcon). When slaved to the radar and I get a good tone, I uncage the head and make sure the seeker stays locked on the target that I have selected to confirm that it is going to go where I want it. This does not always happen if there multiple targets very close together (the radar can distinguish them, by the heat-seeking head cannot). Of course, in DCS this may or may not be so useful depending on whether seeker lock error is modeled.

[GGTharos]

Yes, and this, I think is unrealistic? I could be wrong ...

 

You would be wrong. ECM is reasonably unrealistic in both sims.

 

Also, while the cooling process adds to the planning and workload (i.e., cannot just switch to heaters and fire; need to plan this ahead of time), I find the uncaging process actually useful tactically in the F-16 (as simulated by Falcon). When slaved to the radar and I get a good tone, I uncage the head and make sure the seeker stays locked on the target that I have selected to confirm that it is going to go where I want it. This does not always happen if there multiple targets very close together (the radar can distinguish them, by the heat-seeking head cannot). Of course, in DCS this may or may not be so useful depending on whether seeker lock error is modeled.

 

I'll have to re-check the F-15's -34 but I don't recall there being an uncage procedure for this jet - I may be remembering incorrectly though. Cooling comes on when you flip master arm on or when you select the missile. It doesn't take much time at all, so there's no real workload involved there.

 

There's no reason for this 'seeker track error' to be realistic without diving into the technical reasons for it. The typical reason to uncage is to ensure that the seeker tracks the intended target instead of a flare for example, but wrong target is hightly unlikely unless you have some contrived situation with a bandit in MIL right behind your buddy in MAX and you're behind both of them. While that isn't represented in-game, you probably wouldn't be uncaging to check your missile in a heated dogfight anyway ... you'd just not fire instead.

[Bearfoot]

You would be wrong. ECM is reasonably unrealistic in both sims.

 

Did you mean to say "reasonably realistic" rather than "reasonably unrealistic" here? Because otherwise it does not make sense for me to be wrong when I suggest that jamming is unrealistic? Not challenging: just want clarification. I am always open to learning, and this looks like a good opportunity for me to learn!

[Bearfoot]

There's no reason for this 'seeker track error' to be realistic without diving into the technical reasons for it.

 

Fair enough. Again, always good to hear from those in the know, though I always appreciate the technical details when available! Makes the difference between "knowing" and "understanding", and to understand is better than just to know, so I always prefer to understand!

 

The typical reason to uncage is to ensure that the seeker tracks the intended target instead of a flare for example, but wrong target is hightly unlikely unless you have some contrived situation with a bandit in MIL right behind your buddy in MAX and you're behind both of them. While that isn't represented in-game, you probably wouldn't be uncaging to check your missile in a heated dogfight anyway ... you'd just not fire instead.

 

Certainly, it is relatively rare and not something that is fundamental to BFM. My typical use case has been when there are two or more bandits close together in front of me, and one is already smoking and I just want to cripple or take out the other one so as to be able to close in with guns and finish. Not saying that this situation occurs every day in RL ...

 

Of course, the other reason I find uncaging useful in the Other Sim is when NOT using radar to cue the seeker. I keep the head caged and fly aircraft so center is pointed at target, wait for a good tone, then uncage and make sure the seeker head remains fixed on target I have in mind instead of something else in the sky. If the seeker diamond drifts away to somewhere else in the sky when uncaging, I recage and readjust till I get what I want. Come to think of it, this is a more common use for my uncaging-to-check-before-firing than the previous.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bearfoot

[GGTharos]

It's generally unrealistic in all sims. Some sims may get it a bit better than others, but in general the electronic battlefield is not well simulated at all.

 

Did you mean to say "reasonably realistic" rather than "reasonably unrealistic" here? Because otherwise it does not make sense for me to be wrong when I suggest that jamming is unrealistic? Not challenging: just want clarification. I am always open to learning, and this looks like a good opportunity for me to learn!

[GGTharos]

Yep, this part is definitely not simulated in FC3. You see a better simulation of this in the A-10C, but the F-15C lacks it ... more specifically, and IIRC, the seeker is always 'caged' in the eagle, but if you bore-sight it on target it'll 'cage' on target automatically as soon as it has sufficient tone volume. There's basically no 'free' operating mode again, IIRC.

 

Of course, the other reason I find uncaging useful in the Other Sim is when NOT using radar to cue the seeker. I keep the head caged and fly aircraft so center is pointed at target, wait for a good tone, then uncage and make sure the seeker head remains fixed on target I have in mind instead of something else in the sky. If the seeker diamond drifts away to somewhere else in the sky when uncaging, I recage and readjust till I get what I want. Come to think of it, this is a more common use for my uncaging-to-check-before-firing than the previous.