DCS: F-15C Poll

[Buzz313th]

8 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

”Would you spend $80 to buy a FF F-15 module if you can buy the FC3 version for $25?”

Absolutely...  Also I have FC3 and I wouldn't hesitate to spend $80 on a FF F-15C.  Owning FC3 is not a factor at all.  Actually, I think flying the FC3 F-15C makes me more interested in buying a FF 15C.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Buzz313th]

Considering the complexity of DCS itself and the simple fact that every module represents a study simulation of a particular aircraft that requires weeks of commitment to be proficient, I believe FC3 only sells, both as a entry level "Package", a way to get your feet wet and is simply an introduction to bigger and better things.  Once you buy your first couple FF modules, FC3 kinda becomes irrelevant and might only be played because your favorite aircraft is still not available in FF. 

 

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, Buzz313th said:

Once you buy your first couple FF modules, FC3 kinda becomes irrelevant

I don't necessarily fully agree. To me, FC3 are anything but irrelevant -- they complement each other and emphasize the breadth of experience that DCS has to offer: some days I take out the 10C II to enjoy procedures and revel in the sheer quality and complexity of simulation that this module offers. On other days I take out tanks -- and for that, I'll use the simplified FC 10A, which allows me to simply enjoy blowing stuff up. The 15E and -C feel similar to me in that respect, except (silly left-fielder that I am, and Karma-burning be damned) I'd love to see a low-fidelity (FC-style) -E to complement my FF Mudhen. I love both my FC-style and FF planes, even if they are the same type. DCS has enough depth to make both shine, just maybe not to everyone.

[draconus]

22 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Would you spend $80 to buy a FF F-15 module if you can buy the FC3 version for $25?

Yes, but most probably would buy it even earlier with preorder / early access price of $60-70 or later on some sale. Same as now you can get FC3 aircraft for $7 but it's still not enough for most and definitely not in same ball park as FF module. Please, look here, why FC3 is still alive in DCS:

Over 83% of FC3 users would be glad to spend more money for the same aircraft but FF, be it F-15C, MiG-29 or even Su-25. The demand is high.

[Buzz313th]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

Yes, but most probably would buy it even earlier with preorder / early access price of $60-70 or later on some sale. Same as now you can get FC3 aircraft for $7 but it's still not enough for most and definitely not in same ball park as FF module. Please, look here, why FC3 is still alive in DCS:

Over 83% of FC3 users would be glad to spend more money for the same aircraft but FF, be it F-15C, MiG-29 or even Su-25. The demand is high.

Great point posting that poll.  Combined with the other poll, they clearly represent the want for a FF F15C.

 

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that, if a developer made a well done FF Eagle C, it would easily be in the top 3 of most popular FF modules, and my gut feeling is that it could contend for the top slot in module sales.

[Kev2go]

On 12/1/2023 at 6:14 PM, Beirut said:

 

Not multirole for me. Just beeg badabooms for A2G. That's what the Strike Eagle is all about. 

"Boom!"

 

Good on you but I appreciate the "multirole" even on a dedicated strike mission because unlike a F111 or A10, the F15E can be expected to self escort should it run into to trouble from air threats in a contested environment. Its only somewhat handicapped in WVR due to those CFT's, if you don't need to kill what you need to kill before a merge, but that will be mitigated in a distant future with the planned CTU's that offer Aim9X with JHMCS.

There just isn't any modern bluforce standalone fully fidelity module  that a effective at CAP in the way a F15 is.  F16C radar is still limited in range detection, and doesn't have the gas for cap. F/A18C offers a better radar relative to the F16, carries a larger quantity of Aim120's, but it doesn't have the speed, its really draggy. F15E is the only platform to have both the powerful digitally processed radar, the missile quantity, speed, and station time to be a proper CAP platform. It only lags behind in maneuvering relative to  its dedicated air superiority brother the F15C due to those CFT's.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Kev2go]

On 12/1/2023 at 1:58 AM, SuperKermit said:

Exactly that! 

Like I said: I think we need a proper single seated Cold War air superiority fighter depicting the state of its time. And that excludes all the fancy upgrades that came with MSIP-(II) IMHO.

BTW, AIM-120 came in 1991. At that time the Cold War was over already.

P.S.: And then please add the MiG-29A as an equal opponent!

 

But will that sell? Matt wagner in a recent interview with CW Lemoine said that its hard for them to justify doing a F15C in lieu of a recent F15E release by razbam. Its even harder to make a case if the version specifically requested is a less capable then the FC3 F15C which is a MSIP 2?

If anything id think ED or a 3rd party might aim to do a more modern MSIP 2 that has Link 16, JHMCS and Aim9x, if they want to make it a more attractive buy, given these are the features other teen series have. 

Seems the only way to make everyone  ( or at least more of the community) happy is take the heatblur route and make multiple configurations of a FF module, but of course that takes more time and money for development.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[SuperKermit]

vor 38 Minuten schrieb Kev2go:

Its even harder to make a case if the version specifically requested is a less capable then the FC3 F15C which is a MSIP 2?

If anything id think ED or a 3rd party might aim to do a more modern MSIP 2 that Link 16, JHMCS and Aim9x, if they want to make it a more attractive buy, given these are the features other teen series have. 

Personally, I don't follow the argument that more capabilites make a module more attractive. Why do you think the Cold War era has so many fans?

If you want a Link 16 connected and AIM-9x firing fighter then pick the F-16 or F-18. To me at least an early F-15A/C would depict that fighter in the era it was most relevant. It would be the first single seated air superiority fighter of the Cold War era in DCS. With all those modern gizmos it would not fit into that context anymore. And yes, I really think that this would sell!

The ideal way certainly would be different versions like the F-14.

Edited December 4, 2023 by SuperKermit

[Kev2go]

54 minutes ago, SuperKermit said:

Personally, I don't follow the argument that more capabilites make a module more attractive. Why do you think the Cold War era has so many fans?

If you want a Link 16 connected and AIM-9x firing fighter then pick the F-16 or F-18. To me at least an early F-15A/C would depict that fighter in the era it was most relevant. It would be the first single seated air superiority fighter of the Cold War era. With all those modern gizmos it would not fit into that context anymore. And yes, I really think that this would sell!

The ideal way certainly would be different versions like the F-14.

 

IF people want cold war era its earlier generation like the Phantom to face off against Mig 21bis or future planned Mig23MLA. F15A or early F15C   when it was " most relevant" would be at a significant advantage against those aircraft with the features that were considered gizmos in their day. When it comes to Mig29 and even less so for the Su27, i don't see how a F15C MSIP has too many "gizmos" against those. Just peel off the amraams.  All that 1 MFD does for the Fc3 bird is display armaments. MFD never got to see its full potential in that timeframe because cold war ended and JTIDS program was canned. 

 

Keep in mind even Razbams Mirage 2000C was remade into a post cold war configuration once they had that contract with the ADA. Both Spirale countermeasure suite and addon eclair cm are post cold war, circa 90s. NVG compatible cockpit and digital radio are from the 2000s, and cold war players aren't losing their minds over that. Just like FC3 F15C cold war players shouldn't lose their minds, and realize that FC3 F15C restricted to sparrows is a close enough substitute for a pre MSIP F15C.

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

 

good on you but i appreciate the "multirole" even on a dedicated strike mission because unlike a F111 or A10, the F15E can be expected to self escort should it run into to trouble from air threats in a contested environment. Its only somewhat handicapped in WVR due to those CFT's if you don't need to kill what you need to kill before a merge, but that will be mitigated in a distant future with the planned CTU's that offer Aim9X with JHMCS.

There just isn't any modern bluforce standalone fully fidelity module  that a effective at CAP in the way a F15 is.  F16C radar is still limited in range detection, and doesn't have the gas for cap. F/A18C is better radar wise relative to the F16, and in terms of  Aim120s  it carries lots but it doesn't have the speed,  its really draggy. F15E is the only platform to have both the powerful digital processed radar,  the missile quantity, speed, and station time to be a proper CAP platform. it only lags behind in maneuvering relative to  its dedicated air superiority brother the F15C due to those CFT's.

 

No question you're right, I'm just an A2G kind of guy. But I will give the A2A a go, I've barely touched that part of the plane. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

due to those CFT's

AND the heavier nose, AND the suboptimal airflow over the canopy, AND the stiffer wings, …

 

Simply removing CFTs still won’t magically turn a dark grey into a light grey…

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

Seems the only way to make everyone  ( or at least more of the community) happy is take the heatblur route and make multiple configurations of a FF module

Indeed, that’s probably where the future of DCS lies, especially given the amount of people who look at DCS as a “virtual museum”. I think it’s a lot more interesting to be able to follow a particular aircraft through its service life from IOC-ish to retirement

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Kev2go said:

But will that sell?

The Eagle is legendary, that question is the same as asking if the Phantom or Tomcat will sell. Granted I'm just a forum goer like everyone else here, but chances are yes it would. It has the AA advantage over the E, it has multirole capability so it has appeal to those wanting to perform more than just air combat, it's simpler than the E which is a valid point because there is a demand for less complex/less cutting edge aircraft (F-5, F-4, F-14, A versions of F-18 and F-16, and different versions of the Phantom which is not even released yet), historically it fits in situations which the E does not, then of course there is also "cool factor" preference, what ever you want to call it, for some it's just more desirable because it is.

  

26 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Indeed, that’s probably where the future of DCS lies, especially given the amount of people who look at DCS as a “virtual museum”. I think it’s a lot more interesting to be able to follow a particular aircraft through its service life from IOC-ish to retirement

Yes. This really needs to happen more. It worked for the Tomcat, L-39, Fw-190, F-4. If you stretch the same has happened with the A-10 and Ka-50. And people want it for a bunch of other aircraft.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Exorcet

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Simply removing CFTs still won’t magically turn a dark grey into a light grey…

Which is precisely why the USAF flew both models during the same period. 

[Buzz313th]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

The Eagle is legendary, that question is the same as asking if the Phantom or Tomcat will sell.

Who does not want to fly a Legend?

The F4 is a multirole pig.  It did nothing really well.  As a matter of fact, it wasn't really good at anything; thank god for the skill of our pilots or we woulda lost more F4's.  But, people are lining up to purchase the module.  Why?..  Because it's too F-ing cool and an icon in air combat history...

Now lets talk about the F15C.  It is almost at that "Phantom Too F-ing Cool" status and it is the AIr Superiority Master of the modern era.   Nobody can resist that, except the people who don't "Care about air to air".

Plus, from the perspective of a DCS player who spends most of their time in dogfight or A2A servers, the F15C is a no brainer.

Release of a FF F15C will probably hurt other module sales within the first couple months of release. 

If I was on the fence of buying a F14 or F4 and I heard the Eagle was being released soon.  I would wait and get the eagle.

My current ownership of the F16 or F18 would have no impact on me buying a FF Eagle C.

 

My normal morning rant for development of my childhood dream.

 

Cheers

 

 

[henshao]

if not a FF F-15C they could at least address the plethora of issues in the current F-15C

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The Eagle is legendary,

Yes that's why there is already an F15E 

 

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

 

that question is the same as asking if the Phantom or Tomcat will sell.

No its It's like asking will an f4c Phantom sell if there is already a f4e. 

 

There has been a trend to add on the most defintive version of an aircraft instead of thier earliest variants, regardless of the era.

 

Teen series fighters typically has seen both ed or 3rd party had 2000s era configurations of them. Just like heatblur is developing an F4E. Although it includes multiple versions of the F4E. All of them are post vietnam versions with wing slats.

 

Ww2 theater has P51D blocks 25 thru 30. P47D block 30 thru 40. These are also late versions of they respective aircraft.

 

The only exception to not going for the best or more definitive vacations  thus seems to be when there isn't enough publicly available data to do so. IE heatblur not doing a F14B with PtID (more appropriate for lantirn equipped bombcats)  or canceling plans for a F14D.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Exorcet]

23 minutes ago, Buzz313th said:

Who does not want to fly a Legend?

The F4 is a multirole pig.  It did nothing really well.  As a matter of fact, it wasn't really good at anything; thank god for the skill of our pilots or we woulda lost more F4's.  But, people are lining up to purchase the module.  Why?..  Because it's too F-ing cool and an icon in air combat history...

 

 

 

This is the Eagle thread, but I need to be fair to the Phantom, it wasn't that bad. The real issue it suffered from was the lack of proper pilot training. When that was sorted it out, it really showed it potential. The Phantom gets an unfortunate reputation but it really was a trailblazer and set the stage for later planes like the Eagle.

9 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

Yes that's why there is already an F15E 

 

No its It's like asking will an f4c Phantom sell if there is already a f4e

 

The C and E are both F-15's, but they are fairly different from each other, enough to consider them different planes in my opinion. Rather than F-4C to F-4E the difference is more akin to F-16 vs F/A-18. Those two on a superficial level overlap quite heavily, but the details differ. The fact that on paper the Hornet can do everything the F-16 can plus use a carrier and Harpoons didn't stop the F-16 from being developed, or from DCS players purchasing both. I'm not surprised at all, because the "little" differences matter.

  

9 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

There has been a trend to add on the most defintive version of an aircraft instead of thier earliest variants.

 

Teen series fighters typically has seen both ed or 3rd party had 2000s era configurations of them. Just like heatblur is developing an F4E. Although it includes multiple versions of the F4E. All of them are post vietnam versions with wing slats.

 

The only exception to not going for the best or more definitive vacations  thus seems to be when there isn't enough publicly available data to do so. IE heatblur not doing a F14B with PtID (more appropriate for lantirn equipped bombcats)  or canceling plans for a F14D.

I suppose you can say that there is a trend but it's hardly binding. Heatblur went out of their way to model the F-14 partially because it's engines were terrible. That's part of the plane's appeal.

Also with the E and C being distanced from each other more than something like the Tomcat, I'm not sure that the definitive model trend applies here. The E isn't an upgraded C. It's a repurposed one. It's not better, it's different.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Exorcet

[Kev2go]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

This is the Eagle thread, but I need to be fair to the Phantom, it wasn't that bad. The real issue it suffered from was the lack of proper pilot training. When that was sorted it out, it really showed it potential. The Phantom gets an unfortunate reputation but it really was a trailblazer and set the stage for later planes like the Eagle.

The C and E are both F-15's, but they are fairly different from each other, enough to consider them different planes in my opinion. Rather than F-4C to F-4E the difference is more akin to F-16 vs F/A-18. Those two on a superficial level overlap quite heavily, but the details differ. The fact that on paper the Hornet can do everything the F-16 can plus use a carrier and Harpoons didn't stop the F-16 from being developed, or from DCS players purchasing both. I'm not surprised at all, because the "little" differences matter.

False equivalency. F15e has more in common with f15c then f16 has in common with the fa18. The only thing those 2 have in common is "mutirole" 

f15e was developed from the f15D airframe, and even shares some systems as a msip f15. Some msip birds had apg70 ( but even that's basically the same as apg 63 psp in a2a realm. Its the a/g mapping where the apg70 has advantages) and the alr56c rwr. The difference seems radical inside the cockpit due to the digitization of avionics  and being mfd centric  and the ability do do strike missions using more then just mk80 series bombs.

F16 and F18 on the other hand were developed from totally different airframe programs using totally different systems

 

The f15E can do everything the f15c msip 2 can in a2a, except for being as maneuverable in a dogfight after a merge. On the a2g realm it's and then some.

 

.

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Exorcet]

Just now, Kev2go said:

False equivalency.

It's not. How the planes were developed doesn't matter. What we're discussing is how they differ in DCS. From a player perspective you can argue that the Hornet and Viper do the same thing. If the argument is that the E makes the C redundant, the other two modules are in a pretty similar position. One is a bit faster, one carries a slightly wider array of weapons, they have different cockpits, but if you wanted to you could do the same missions in both for the most part. That statement applies to both sets of planes.

The Eagles differ not just in the merge but also in BVR where the C is superior at maneuvering at altitude, just like the F-16 enjoys vastly better acceleration over the Hornet. The two planes feel different despite overlapping in capability.

[Buzz313th]

36 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

This is the Eagle thread, but I need to be fair to the Phantom, it wasn't that bad. The real issue it suffered from was the lack of proper pilot training. When that was sorted it out, it really showed it potential. The Phantom gets an unfortunate reputation but it really was a trailblazer and set the stage for later planes like the Eagle.

Very fair and I admit, maybe I was a too harsh on the Phantom.

10 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The Eagles differ not just in the merge but also in BVR where the C is superior at maneuvering at altitude, just like the F-16 enjoys vastly better acceleration over the Hornet. The two planes feel different despite overlapping in capability.

I was just writing something along the lines of maneuverability in BVR and the "C" being able to maintain a higher energy state at altitude as it cycles between defensive and offensive in the BVR engagement, but you beat me to it.. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Buzz313th

[Kev2go]

36 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

 

   The E isn't an upgraded C. It's a repurposed one. It's not better, it's different.

 

I would of argued it is better  anyways just due to greater digitization.

An f15e without cfts coupled with the more beefy 229 engines would been a monster. In fact they have done that for a2a configurations in recent years. 

 

An f15a/c had it been made just a  decade later would have been more digital and laden with mfds. Perhaps even allowed to be a single seat multirole fighter.  A larger f16 of sorts, because its laready possible for the pilot to do all the combat stuff from the front of an f15e anways.

Take the eurofighter. The early production batches were only fighter interceptors. A2a, and its fully digital.  It gradually evolved into a "multirole" platform with some nations like uk modifying tranche 1 for some precision strike ( target pod and only laser bombs) as a interim solution for gwot needs,  with later tranches being fully fleshed out and more versatile as multirole fighters.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[henshao]

the reason the USAF never used the single seat F-15s to drop bombs is because the USAF was uniquely positioned to have a bomb truck superior even to the phantom and dedicate it solely to Air to Air, no other air force could afford this including Israel which bombed stuff plenty with its F-15As and Cs. the USAF at any given time had phantoms, f-111s, f-16s, A-7s, and a plethora of heavy bombers

[Kev2go]

18 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

It's not. How the planes were developed doesn't matter. What we're discussing is how they differ in DCS. From a player perspective you can argue that the Hornet and Viper do the same thing. If the argument is that the E makes the C redundant, the other two modules are in a pretty similar position. One is a bit faster, one carries a slightly wider array of weapons, they have different cockpits, but if you wanted to you could do the same missions in both for the most part. That statement applies to both sets of planes.

The Eagles differ not just in the merge but also in BVR where the C is superior at maneuvering at altitude, just like the F-16 enjoys vastly better acceleration over the Hornet. The two planes feel different despite overlapping in capability.

It's not a problem having worse speed relative to an f15c because the f15e already bests flankers at bvr anyways, its only if you dont kill them before a merge will you start having problems. And is already much more effective bvr relative to f16 and fa18.

Systems matter more. When it gets link 16. F15E will have another key edge in SA thst f15c  in current configuration does not have.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Kev2go

[Buzz313th]

3 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

I would of argued it is better  anyways just due to greater digitization.

An f15e without cfts coupled with the more beefy 229 engines would been a monster. In fact they have done that for a2a configurations in recent years. 

 

An f15a/c had it been made just a  decade later would have been more digital and laden with mfds. Perhaps even allowed to be a single seat multirole fighter.  A larger f16 of sorts, because its laready possible for the pilot to do all the combat stuff from the front of an f15e anways.

Take the eurofighter. The early production batches were only fighter interceptors. A2a, and its fully digital.  It gradually evolved into a "multirole" platform with some nations like uk modifying tranche 1 for some precision strike ( target pod and only laser bombs) as a interim solution for gwot needs,  with later tranches being fully fleshed out and more versatile as multirole fighters.

 

The air superiority capability historically demonstrated by the "C" has more to do with it's flight characteristics than it's switches and buttons.