DCS: F-15C Poll

[trevoC]

42 minutes ago, bies said:

I even understand than, we have F-16 and F/A-18 from mid 2000s, but no opposition. F-16 and F/A-18 suffer less since then can forget about A-A and just perform A-G. F-15C, pure A-A, without any 2000s opposition in the air, wouldn't have anything to do. At most fight 1985 Su-27S. Or completely fictional and stupid to be honest USAF vs. US Navy scenarios.

When Cold War variant would have plenty of period correct opposition and real air wars to recreate.

 

I'll assume you mean in multiplayer.

There's plenty to do in campaigns and missions.

We all want full fidelity redfor aircraft, but its not like ED can choose who decides to give them enough access to these aircraft to develop them. Although they do manage who gets to develop aircraft for DCS (in regards to third parties) its not like they dictate the direction these third parties have to take or develop either.

Everyone is aware that a full fidelity MiG-29 or Su-25/27/34/35 etc.. would be a smashing success. I know that ED wants these more than anyone, but you can't just make it up. You need access to them and not just access to them but permission.

[Exorcet]

36 minutes ago, bies said:

I even understand than, we have F-16 and F/A-18 from mid 2000s, but no opposition. F-16 and F/A-18 suffer less since then can forget about A-A and just perform A-G. F-15C, pure A-A, without any 2000s opposition in the air, wouldn't have anything to do. At most fight 1985 Su-27S. Or completely fictional and stupid to be honest USAF vs. US Navy scenarios.

When Cold War variant would have plenty of period correct opposition and real air wars to recreate.

 

It's more complex than that, even putting aside single player and just looking at MP, a 2000's Eagle still has a role a fill. We don't have to have, and in my opinion shouldn't have, mirror missions online. At least not always. Red air can have inferior planes supported by superior SAM's. This can make Su-27/J-11/MiG-29 a lot more problematic for blue side. There is also the JF-17 as a reasonable adversary.

Also remember that during Cope India 2004 even MiG-21 Bisons were shown to be effective with proper tactics. Yes the exercise did put restrictions on the USAF, but I think it still shows that the situation you find yourself in matters. Red side can work with greater numbers and SAM's in play.

But I'm not trying to downplay one version of the Eagle for another. Unless a developer comes along and asks for a poll or something, it's going to be their choice what version is modeled. All the air to air F-15's would bring something great to DCS.

[trevoC]

Another point would be that realistically bluefor would (even today) be going up against much older aircraft in most theatres of war except for a handful of countries like Russia so a more modern F style aircraft is more likely to encounter an older mirage or MiG than an Su-35. It would only be a direct conflict with Russia that modern equipment would match.

[bies]

7 hours ago, trevoC said:

I'll assume you mean in multiplayer.

There's plenty to do in campaigns and missions.

We all want full fidelity redfor aircraft, but its not like ED can choose who decides to give them enough access to these aircraft to develop them. Although they do manage who gets to develop aircraft for DCS (in regards to third parties) its not like they dictate the direction these third parties have to take or develop either.

Everyone is aware that a full fidelity MiG-29 or Su-25/27/34/35 etc.. would be a smashing success. I know that ED wants these more than anyone, but you can't just make it up. You need access to them and not just access to them but permission.

In both SP and MP equally. In MP flying against human piloted 1985 Su-27S, in SP flying against AI piloted 1985 Su-27S. trevoC and Exorcet argument are valid as well since IRL most Russian aircrafts in mid 2000s were barely modernized 1980s Soviet built ones.

Russian "modern" 2000s aircraft will not be possible in th future due to Rssian law. Soviet era 1980s MiG-29 9.12 - ED stated they are not allowed to make it, but maybe some 3rd party could. Still we are talking about Cold War era 1980s Soviet MiG-29.

That's why i think F-15A/C should include Cold War variants and probably also 2000s for collection as well. It would be simply more fun to fight RED force in F-15 last time they were competitive and posed a danger or challenge for USAF. Shooting down hopelessly outdated Su-27 and MiG-29 becomes chap and boring fast, maybe Dynamic Campaign would make "seal clubbing" more fun overall. IRL US pure air campaign in 2000s against Russia would be nearly as one sided as Gulf War - Raptors, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s having big numerical advantage, cutting edge technology, maintenance, training, support - against barely modernized Su-27s and MiG-29s firing R-27R/ER, massively underfounded, with barely any flight hours pilot training, extremely lacking maintenance, logistics, guided weapon, organisation, support etc.

 

PS: Su-35 entered service in 2014 and in very small numbers. A decade later than our F-16C, F/A-18C, AH-64D etc. So yes, surely 2000s F-15C wouldn't meet them since Su-35 didn't exist back then. For comparison F-22 entered service 2006.

[WinterH]

On 2/19/2023 at 6:30 AM, Exorcet said:

The AMRAAM era lacks a true air superiority fighter

Well the Eurofighter is going to be a thing soon(tm) anyway isn't it? Yes it'll be able to carry bombs if need be, but it is a primarily air superiority focused design, with appropriate systems and performance to go with it. And I'm fairly sure it'll have both AMRAAMs and Meteors.

I personally find a full fidelity F-15C somewhat redundant (feel the same about the rumored/hinted MiG-29A too), but that's just me admittedly. To me it seems like the only interesting thing about those birds are their flight characteristics, which are already replicated in their FC3 incarnations. But that's me who isn't too interested in air to air, especially the BVR combat, so I suppose I have to admit some personal bias in that. Still though, to me, relatively small drag penalty Strike Eagle will have over an Eagle is pretty well compensated for with additional thrust, and an even better radar when it comes to BVR after all wouldn't they?

However, a Cold War F-15, I might find that somewhat more interesting, and it would make that upcoming MiG-29A potentially somewhat more interesting too, being a closer and period correct match for each other.

44 minutes ago, bies said:

Russian "modern" 2000s aircraft will not be possible in th future due to Rssian law. Soviet era 1980s MiG-29 9.12 - ED stated they are not allowed to make it, but maybe some 3rd party could. Still we are talking about Cold War era 1980s Soviet MiG-29...
...PS: Su-35 entered service in 2014 and in very small numbers. A decade later than our F-16C, F/A-18C, AH-64D etc. So yes, surely 2000s F-15C wouldn't meet them since Su-35 didn't exist back then. For comparison F-22 entered service 2006.

Yeah, the better variants of the Russian aircraft (especially those that were operational in any considerable number) were export variants serving various other nations back in 2000s, and in most of the 2010s. I would like to argue if we ever get a modern Flanker or Fulcrum, it may be one of those, but truth be told, those countries aren't necessarily known for being cooperative about sharing military info either afaik. Funnily, even those aircraft may not quite fit your definition of proper opponents, as most of those countries were in close relationships with west, and had exercises with USAF or USN aircraft using their Flankers.

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, WinterH said:

Well the Eurofighter is going to be a thing soon(tm) anyway isn't it? Yes it'll be able to carry bombs if need be, but it is a primarily air superiority focused design, with appropriate systems and performance to go with it. And I'm fairly sure it'll have both AMRAAMs and Meteors.

I personally find a full fidelity F-15C somewhat redundant (feel the same about the rumored/hinted MiG-29A too), but that's just me admittedly. To me it seems like the only interesting thing about those birds are their flight characteristics, which are already replicated in their FC3 incarnations. But that's me who isn't too interested in air to air, especially the BVR combat, so I suppose I have to admit some personal bias in that. Still though, to me, relatively small drag penalty Strike Eagle will have over an Eagle is pretty well compensated for with additional thrust, and an even better radar when it comes to BVR after all wouldn't they?

The Eurofighter is still a ways away from a release date. The Eagle also being "half finished" may release before the EF even if it work on it starts later. When the EF arrives, what I said about lacking a pure fighter won't be true anymore, but I was referring to hear and now.

I respect your opinion the F-15C, though I don't really understand it. I would also say flight model is the most important part of the simulation, but proper systems are also very important. I fly F-16 over the FC F-15 partially because of this. There is simply more capability in a FF cockpit. FC planes can BVR and dogfight fine, but they don't let you play with TACAN, or update waypoints mid mission to handle a dynamic situation, or manage radios to coordinate with different assets. You can't program your CM's, you lose the immersive start up, and then there are features of the plane that are completely missing like F-15's Supersearch mode.

The Strike Eagle can be used as a C Eagle, but operationally this wouldn't be the case. I tend to avoid servers or missions that are mirror matches with the same planes on both sides for the same reason. The Strike Eagle's weight and drag penalties are also going to be noticeable. The 229's make up for it in some cases, but the C is always going to have more potential when it comes to speed, altitude, and acceleration since it can be flown clean, plus weapons. Maneuverability also goes to the C, and you'll feel it at high altitude when in BVR combat and also when up close. That's my view on things at least.

[WinterH]

I mean yeah, makes sense, I'll have to admit that an F-15C in full fidelity is interesting for someone whose interests is primarily in 2000s+ BVR. I still don't think it'll be anytime soon, or even before the Eurofighter, but I guess I get the drive for it, unlike an early F/A-18E some folks seems to crave for

I personally would still prefer to see resources theoretically to be diverted to quickly release a FF F-15C used in something else, like a MiG-29 (which is also something I don't get too excited for, but at least it's a nice addition to Cold War, and a red bird, something we can use more of), or a Cold War Cobra (though I know helo teams tend to be separate from jet devs). I still think Strike Eagle will at least be a decent enough rough placeholder for it, but yeah I'll admit that's mostly because it isn't something in my area of interest. Your arguments for full systems modeling do make perfect sense, and are things I share myself in aircraft/roles I care about. So I see that there is indeed a legitimate case for a full fidelity version of fighter Eagle.

I still don't quite agree it should be urgent compared to many other things, considering it will be possible to at least semi-represent, but I do get why it matters as a potential module 

[jaguara5]

Asked about a F-15 A/C FF module in razbam's discord, since the aircraft was mentioned in a couple of posts from one of their developers. 

null

Edited February 22, 2023 by jaguara5

[captain_dalan]

The F-15E is by no means substitute for any A-A Eagle AFAIK. One look at the performance charts states what we already know from the basic specs and the visuals. The added weight, the different aerodynamics and the different engines result in performance that is so different from both the A and C variants, that it's essentially a different plane. I can't say about the avionics, but the cockpit seems different enough to me as well. E is a Mudhen after all and no amount of pretend or make-belief will ever change that, which is the prime reason i won't be getting it. Now if someone made an early A or a mature C..... that would be a different story all together. 

[bies]

 

[Exorcet]

Haven't seen that video yet, some nice HUD footage. The FC3 Eagle's HUD has always been so hard to read compare to the real thing. Really surprising that BMS of all things is going to get a full fidelity Eagle ahead of DCS.

[Lyrode]

Getting a full fidility F-15c in a decade seems too optismistic, if not impossible. And the E is already here so... Not sure whether it would be the case of 190A8 and D9, but not likely imo. Honestly I would be happy enough ED gives it some overhaul or revamp, since it still fights well without some critical avonics or proper FM but the visual really troubles me ... something obvious everybody would see at the first glance even without actually learning to fly or fight. Especially the hard-to-read HUD and that 2000-era graphic throttle.

Unfortunately even a revamp or overhaul is not likely to happen. It has been years since ED did that to Mig-29, which was done to make it independently sell-able or Deka polished their J-11A, intended for cap mainly. FC3 are not revisited as often and becomes forsaken and outdated, that I wouldn't recommend to my friends even if they are new to the game, especially after trial became a thing.

Whereas F-15c is not likely to be the thing however the community loves it, I hope ED could finish the teased Mig-29 if not canceled due to the war. That if achieved will be a huge step.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Lyrode

[F-2]

MSIP II is a great compromise. Entered service in 1986, was the Eagle of the gulf war and Kosovo. Appropriate sparrow and amraam shooter. Very well documented radar. It’s also arguably what the FC3 Eagle actually represents regardless of what the manual says, and fits the original LOMAC setting.

 

That said I’m not sure sure APG-63 PSP, APG-70, APG-63(v)1 should be all that different. I don’t know if any eagles with mech scan radar got HMD or the works. If they did it must have been pretty close to the end right before a lot of them got AESA.

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Getting a full fidility F-15c in a decade seems too optismistic, if not impossible. And the E is already here so... Not sure whether it would be the case of 190A8 and D9, but not likely imo.

The E doesn't matter. Different plane, we have variations of a plane family already, The C is still "half finished", and the demand is high for the C. While we can't know why ED hasn't focused on it, it remains a pretty attractive choice for a module.

Quote

Unfortunately even a revamp or overhaul is not likely to happen. It has been years since ED did that to Mig-29, which was done to make it independently sell-able or Deka polished their J-11A, intended for cap mainly. FC3 are not revisited as often and becomes forsaken and outdated, that I wouldn't recommend to my friends even if they are new to the game, especially after trial became a thing.

FC3 is anything but abandoned. It's feature complete. That's why it's not updated often. This is a good thing, the ultimate goal that every module should strive to achieve. If it does become outdated, it will be updated with the rest of DCS World.

[bies]

4 hours ago, F-2 said:

MSIP II is a great compromise. Entered service in 1986, was the Eagle of the gulf war and Kosovo. Appropriate sparrow and amraam shooter. Very well documented radar. It’s also arguably what the FC3 Eagle actually represents regardless of what the manual says, and fits the original LOMAC setting.

 

That said I’m not sure sure APG-63 PSP, APG-70, APG-63(v)1 should be all that different. I don’t know if any eagles with mech scan radar got HMD or the works. If they did it must have been pretty close to the end right before a lot of them got AESA.

Agree. What is more F-15C MSIP II from 1985-1995 has plenty of both flayable and AI opposition and whole timeframe proper enviroment in DCS.

[Bremspropeller]

On 2/19/2023 at 11:48 AM, bies said:

I think 2 variants would be ideal, 1975 F-15A, with all 1970s DCS F-5E, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, F-14A, F-4E etc.

And 1985 F-15C MSIP for late Cold War/Gulf War, with Su-27S, MiG-29A,  F-14B, Su-25A, Su-17M, Mi-24 etc. It was used in 1990s as well with AMRAAM.

This.

And maybe mix in a B/D.

[F-2]

MSIP II Eagle is also close (a little more advanced actually but close) the Saudi, and Japanese eagles which are also large operators.

[upyr1]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:48 AM, Nahen said:

No one has ever used the F-15C in combat to attack ground targets. Equally well, you can fly in AWACS E3 and shoot ISIS positions through the open door with M4 rifle

That may be true however that doesn't change the fact there is an A/G mode on the C 

[Lyrode]

2023/6/25 PM11点15分，Exorcet说：

The E doesn't matter. Different plane, we have variations of a plane family already, The C is still "half finished", and the demand is high for the C. While we can't know why ED hasn't focused on it, it remains a pretty attractive choice for a module.

Family of planes is a new thing in recent 5 or 6 years. P-51, P-47 and Spitfire family are nearly identical, and 190's are so different that share little things in common. Mirage F1 is a pack of planes but 80 dollars for the variety, and heatblur's F-14's are very similar while F-4 family will be sold seperately. 

Yet we never had a family with part of it done by one team and the second part done by another team (I mean full fidility). F-15 is the new case where Razbam developed the E, and ED's resopnse to the community is "Now that Razbam has an E we wouldn't plan a C". And Razbam stated "No doc and no plan". The only case would be another team, willing to do the C and team-up with Razbam to bring it, reducing the cost down and be cheap so it wouldn't be a $79.99 like the E.

I would like to see that, so do the Eagle ehthusiasts. But would any company do that, at the risk people picking between C and E? It's not like Heatblur selling their F-4 family seperately since they get all the money without competition. No one had done any market research, in case of two sub-virations form two developers overlapping each other. Again ED did some research of their users, saying"People like multi-role better" ((I personally doubt it, since good multi-role in DCS are the best AA platform at the same time, and the F-15c quality is too below standard to let people love its current state and fly it)) , and so many Youtubers recommand people to buy multi-role modern jets with MPCD's to make the best use of their money. In the future top recommendations will be: F-18, F-16, JF-17, F-15E. A shame that it's not likely to arrive anytime soon. It's been more than half a decade people talked about C, and yet another decade without C.

Back in 2018 I was really thrilled by ED's MAC project, thinking it would bring a second spring to outdated planes, especially the F-15C. And that went nowhere

2023/6/25 PM11点15分，Exorcet说：

FC3 is anything but abandoned. It's feature complete. That's why it's not updated often. This is a good thing, the ultimate goal that every module should strive to achieve. If it does become outdated, it will be updated with the rest of DCS World.

Yes, finished but not updated often, as other DCS modules are e.g. F-5e, Mig-15, 190D9. They should really do it, like updating warbirds, making new damage models, visuals and sounds. Many third parties bring updates or system maintenance often but ED may have too many loads on them as the primary developer so no spare time or resource for FC3, which is legacy with old codes that need even more effort to make it work.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Lyrode said:

The only case would be another team, willing to do the C and team-up with Razbam to bring it, reducing the cost down and be cheap so it wouldn't be a $79.99 like the E.

No one has to team up with Razbam for the C and there's no reason it couldn't cost $80 as full fidelity modern jet module. For first few years it sells with preorder and EA prices anyway but that goes for all modules. It won't be any cheap copy-paste either as the C will have different FM, engines, cockpit and external model.

We love Strike Eagle for what it is but it still isn't air superiority fighter like the C we'd love to fly and many would gladly buy.

[Lyrode]

3小时前，draconus说：

No one has to team up with Razbam for the C and there's no reason it couldn't cost $80 as full fidelity modern jet module. For first few years it sells with preorder and EA prices anyway but that goes for all modules. It won't be any cheap copy-paste either as the C will have different FM, engines, cockpit and external model.

We love Strike Eagle for what it is but it still isn't air superiority fighter like the C we'd love to fly and many would gladly buy.

We and many other enthusiastics would buy regardless of the price, but if F-15C costs the same as the Strike eagle, which has more roles to offer and can do multicrew, I doubt those people interested in the F-15 but not confined to a specific  model like us, or in a larger sense general players who already owned F-15E or looking for new interesting jets would choose the C instead of the E.

Any company interested to develop a C needs to consider the risk--competition. Nothing wrong with a C costing $80, but would this enjoy a large audience regardless of the obviously more versitile E, which is also $80? People have witnissed cases where a project with a good reputation ends up a commercial failure.

Edited June 27, 2023 by Lyrode

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Family of planes is a new thing in recent 5 or 6 years. P-51, P-47 and Spitfire family are nearly identical, and 190's are so different that share little things in common. Mirage F1 is a pack of planes but 80 dollars for the variety, and heatblur's F-14's are very similar while F-4 family will be sold seperately.

I wouldn't call 5-6 years new, and since differing models have been handled many ways I don't see it as an obstacle.

Quote

Yet we never had a family with part of it done by one team and the second part done by another team (I mean full fidility).

True, but there is no reason why we couldn't.

Quote

 F-15 is the new case where Razbam developed the E, and ED's resopnse to the community is "Now that Razbam has an E we wouldn't plan a C". And Razbam stated "No doc and no plan". The only case would be another team, willing to do the C and team-up with Razbam to bring it, reducing the cost down and be cheap so it wouldn't be a $79.99 like the E.

There has never been such a statement "Now that Razbam has an E we wouldn't plan a C". And it wouldn't make any sense really. The Hornet and Viper aren't the same plane, but they are quite similar. Yet ED released them back to back. The F-16 in particular was also bound to draw direct comparisons to BMS, a free to play high fidelity simulator that has been established for as long as DCS.

 

Teaming up with Razbam is also not really necessary. The C and the E are totally different, and if we're considering ED they probably have more info on the C than anyone as it is. There also wouldn't be a need to sell the C for cheap, it's as good as any other plane. Sell it for full price.

Quote

I would like to see that, so do the Eagle ehthusiasts. But would any company do that, at the risk people picking between C and E? It's not like Heatblur selling their F-4 family seperately since they get all the money without competition. No one had done any market research, in case of two sub-virations form two developers overlapping each other. Again ED did some research of their users, saying"People like multi-role better" ((I personally doubt it, since good multi-role in DCS are the best AA platform at the same time, and the F-15c quality is too below standard to let people love its current state and fly it)) , and so many Youtubers recommand people to buy multi-role modern jets with MPCD's to make the best use of their money. In the future top recommendations will be: F-18, F-16, JF-17, F-15E. A shame that it's not likely to arrive anytime soon. It's been more than half a decade people talked about C, and yet another decade without C.

For the same reason ED risked people choosing between the Hornet and Viper or 190 A/D. Selling both makes more money than selling one. Some people are going to purchase both, not just choose between them.

 

The F-15C is multirole. It has AG capability, so that's not going to stop it from selling. It's pretty much an advanced F-5 or F-4 in that regard, two popular modules despite being limited to rather dumb bombs.

Quote

Yes, finished but not updated often, as other DCS modules are e.g. F-5e, Mig-15, 190D9. They should really do it, like updating warbirds, making new damage models, visuals and sounds. Many third parties bring updates or system maintenance often but ED may have too many loads on them as the primary developer so no spare time or resource for FC3, which is legacy with old codes that need even more effort to make it work.

Not being updated often is kind of the point when it is finished. Besides, being finished has not prevent some very significant updates, like the Eagle's radar. That's far more significant than new models as far as I'm concerned. FC3 isn't abandoned.

[Silver_Dragon]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Not being updated often is kind of the point when it is finished. Besides, being finished has not prevent some very significant updates, like the Eagle's radar. That's far more significant than new models as far as I'm concerned. FC3 isn't abandoned.

ED has none plans to update FC-3 or add new aircrafts, actualy has a feature complete module and a F-15C module require start from scrach.

[Silver_Dragon]

5 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Family of planes is a new thing in recent 5 or 6 years. P-51, P-47 and Spitfire family are nearly identical, and 190's are so different that share little things in common. Mirage F1 is a pack of planes but 80 dollars for the variety, and heatblur's F-14's are very similar while F-4 family will be sold seperately. 

Yes, finished but not updated often, as other DCS modules are e.g. F-5e, Mig-15, 190D9. They should really do it, like updating warbirds, making new damage models, visuals and sounds. Many third parties bring updates or system maintenance often but ED may have too many loads on them as the primary developer so no spare time or resource for FC3, which is legacy with old codes that need even more effort to make it work.

ED never planned WW2 aircrafts as a "competition" has only a branch of DCS with start with a P-51D with a proft of concept to be feasible build a piston engine into DCS follow by the Fw-190D-9. The P-47 and Fw-190A-8, comming with a old standalone product by RRG studios KS, with ED salved and continue them and follow with more WW2 ETO and PTO module aircrafts. ED has updated on the last years many modules, and has plans to update old modules (UH-1, F-15, Mig-15, etc).

About ED resources... remember ED has very big, compared with 3rd parties, with 3-4 studies, centred on some branches (2 with modern, 1 with WW2, 1 with Terrain / Global world engine / maps, 1 with core funtionality), and ED build more modules and maps with any 3rd parties at year. Remember with actualy not only have on progres to add more funtionality and update previous modules, with has working on core funtionality, Vulcan, Whole World, Dynamic Campaigns, more AI modern and WW2 units, etc, more modules as F6F Hellcat and CH-47 Chinnok, and more maps as Normandy WW2 and Afganistan.

[upyr1]

On 6/25/2023 at 10:15 AM, Exorcet said:

The E doesn't matter. Different plane, we have variations of a plane family already, The C is still "half finished", and the demand is high for the C. While we can't know why ED hasn't focused on it, it remains a pretty attractive choice for a module.

Quote

The fact the E and C are related aircraft indicates that there might be some common code. Frankly When it comes to the C- I just want whoever has the most complete code set to do it. I don't care if it is ED or Razbam or if someone else has to do it

Edited June 27, 2023 by upyr1