DCS: F-15C

[Superbug Echo]

[Nomatic]

I would pay for a FF F-15C. I hope it happens. 

[HiJack]

So, this thread moved to "Core wish list..." and: Then this! WTF!

Is it happening? Come on! Tell us!

 

[SilentSparrow]

1 hour ago, HiJack said:

So, this thread moved to "Core wish list..." and: Then this! WTF!

Is it happening? Come on! Tell us!

 

It also has things like the F-16C, M2000C, and F/A-18C, so it'd probably be more new features on our existing FC3 F-15C than an F-15C module we want. We'd probably need other planes before the F-15C anyways (Super Hornet, F-15E, etc)

[SilentSparrow]

We need one with JHMCS and Link 16. I think we can get that with a 2003-era F-15C because the APG-63(v)2 came to the F-15C soon after that.

[tomcat_driver]

3 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

It also has things like the F-16C, M2000C, and F/A-18C, so it'd probably be more new features on our existing FC3 F-15C than an F-15C module we want. We'd probably need other planes before the F-15C anyways (Super Hornet, F-15E, etc)

Nah, we need the F-15C way before the superhonet. Hornet is already there since ages and the F-15E is a third party project.

[bies]

I would like full fidelity F-15C MSIP II 1980s/Desert Storm. 2000s one with datalink and JHMCS would be proper only for USAF vs USNAVY fictional scenarios as we will never have proper OPFOR from this era.

When 1980s/Desert Storm MSIP II would have lots of proper timeframe correct OPFOR to fight with, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Su-17M, MiG-23MLA, MiG-21bis, and AI MiG-25PD, MiG-31B. And lots of real life air combat history, Cold War era / 1980s servers etc.

[SilentSparrow]

6 minutes ago, tomcat_driver said:

Nah, we need the F-15C way before the superhonet. Hornet is already there since ages and the F-15E is a third party project.

An F-15C has been there since LOMAC. Full-fidelity LOMAC planes are probably the last things that ED wants to do other than the MiG-29 9-12 (We are still stuck with the MiG-29S as non-clickable cockpit). A Lot 25 Super Hornet is very different than the Lot 20 Hornet we have today. The F-15E is a third party project, we all know that. So, an early 2000s full-fidelity F-15C with JHMCS and Link 16 but no AESA would be a great thing for DCS (The APG-63(v)2 AESA may even be unclassified) but is pretty far down the priority list.

[F-2]

51 minutes ago, SilentSparrow said:

An F-15C has been there since LOMAC. Full-fidelity LOMAC planes are probably the last things that ED wants to do other than the MiG-29 9-12 (We are still stuck with the MiG-29S as non-clickable cockpit). A Lot 25 Super Hornet is very different than the Lot 20 Hornet we have today. The F-15E is a third party project, we all know that. So, an early 2000s full-fidelity F-15C with JHMCS and Link 16 but no AESA would be a great thing for DCS (The APG-63(v)2 AESA may even be unclassified) but is pretty far down the priority list.

I’m curious about APG-63(v)2, but it’s very hard to get any information on it.

[draconus]

14 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

Full-fidelity LOMAC planes are probably the last things that ED wants to do other than the MiG-29 9-12

No, they really want to do them all  but most are russian machines and are hard or impossible to model properly atm.

[SilentSparrow]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

No, they really want to do them all  but most are russian machines and are hard or impossible to model properly atm.

What I'm saying is that now that ED keeps announcing modules early in development (We won't get an F-100 until a few years from now but they've already announced the F-100D by Grinnelli) but they haven't made any announcement to the F-15C. And they make so many announcements, they might have even made a Super Hornet announcement (See: You just never know). So, the main idea is that ED could at any time make a full-fidelity F-15C announcement, but they don't, so it's reasonable to assume its further down the priority list.

Edited December 11, 2022 by SilentSparrow

[Silver_Dragon]

21 hours ago, SilentSparrow said:

An F-15C has been there since LOMAC. Full-fidelity LOMAC planes are probably the last things that ED wants to do other than the MiG-29 9-12 (We are still stuck with the MiG-29S as non-clickable cockpit). A Lot 25 Super Hornet is very different than the Lot 20 Hornet we have today. The F-15E is a third party project, we all know that. So, an early 2000s full-fidelity F-15C with JHMCS and Link 16 but no AESA would be a great thing for DCS (The APG-63(v)2 AESA may even be unclassified) but is pretty far down the priority list.

If you check modelviewer and search the FC-3 Cockpits models, discover some cockpits models was start to implement to make click from some years ago, but that work stalled. I think on some point on 2013-15, ED start to convert them on Hardcore modules, but that was a plan with never was complete. They talks by ED of a Mig-29A, will be some restart on that plans.

The old animation cockpits from 2013

 

[SkateZilla]

I honestly would love a F-15C Baz

[F-2]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If you check modelviewer and search the FC-3 Cockpits models, discover some cockpits models was start to implement to make click from some years ago, but that work stalled. I think on some point on 2013-15, ED start to convert them on Hardcore modules, but that was a plan with never was complete. They talks by ED of a Mig-29A, will be some restart on that plans.

The old animation cockpits from 2013

 

I’ve always wondered what was the story with that project

[SilentSparrow]

2 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

I honestly would love a F-15C Baz

An F-15D Baz mod already exists with the same functionality as the F-15C Baz so nobody would buy it.

[SkateZilla]

1 minute ago, SilentSparrow said:

An F-15D Baz mod already exists with the same functionality as the F-15C Baz so nobody would buy it.

A Full fidelity F-15C Baz does not exist, so yes.

[SilentSparrow]

Just now, SkateZilla said:

A Full fidelity F-15C Baz does not exist, so yes.

Oh, my mistake.

[Exorcet]

23 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

A Full fidelity F-15C Baz does not exist, so yes.

Not to mention we have people asking for 2 seat versions of single seaters as it is. There is hardly a module no one would buy, I'd think. I'd certainly still want a C if we ended up with a D somehow.

[Superbug Echo]

[blkspade]

On 12/8/2022 at 1:13 PM, Nahen said:

But did you know that in the current DCS and its mission editor, you can easily prepare missions with interception, visual reconnaissance and escorting any aircraft to any point or to a specific airport? Anything you can think of in an Air to Air scenario can be done.

I think you missed where the problem is. It's not with mission config, but AI behavior. You can intercept OR you can escort. You cannot divert the course of an AI aircraft. Their waypoints are fixed. Let supposed the USAF stopped bothering to intercept Russian Bear bombers entering Alaskan airspace. They'd probably continue on a planned course to do who knows what. But when the F-15s/F-22s show up, things change. They are peacefully guided in a direction back home. That would be an intercept AND an escort. That is what I'm talking about. A large portion of an actual fighter pilots job are handling situations like that without blowing things up. The AI needs a degree of dynamics to allow for that while allowing a different outcomes to actually play out. While it would expand on single player it could actually have function in MP too. Imagine if it took more to shoot down an AWACs than timing a fixed orbit for a long range shot. I don't think a real E3 is going to watch an enemy contact continually close while it circles a fixed spot. The AI "self preservation routine" begins and ends with a terminal phase missile.

[Nahen]

16 hours ago, blkspade said:

I think you missed where the problem is. It's not with mission config, but AI behavior. You can intercept OR you can escort. You cannot divert the course of an AI aircraft. Their waypoints are fixed. Let supposed the USAF stopped bothering to intercept Russian Bear bombers entering Alaskan airspace. They'd probably continue on a planned course to do who knows what. But when the F-15s/F-22s show up, things change. They are peacefully guided in a direction back home. That would be an intercept AND an escort. That is what I'm talking about. A large portion of an actual fighter pilots job are handling situations like that without blowing things up. The AI needs a degree of dynamics to allow for that while allowing a different outcomes to actually play out. While it would expand on single player it could actually have function in MP too. Imagine if it took more to shoot down an AWACs than timing a fixed orbit for a long range shot. I don't think a real E3 is going to watch an enemy contact continually close while it circles a fixed spot. The AI "self preservation routine" begins and ends with a terminal phase missile.

You obviously don't know how to use the mission editor...
You set up the AI plane, you set the waypoints for it, when you fly over to it, you get close to a set distance, the plane ignores its waypoints, enters to the formation with you that you set with your plane and flies wherever you fly.
If it makes sense, you intercept such a plane, and fly it to the indicated place - it can be a specific airport, a specific place on the border between countries, or any place/zone set by the missionmaker. There, the AI plane executes a script that tells it to, for example, land at the indicated airport, flies to a new indicated place abroad or performs any action you come up with in the zone to which it will be escorted.
Where do you see the problem? I've done missions like this, I've flown missions like this, and I don't see a problem with that. It's a matter of knowing ME mechanics and being able to support yourself with scripts. It takes some time to fine-tune the details, but it's easy to do.

[Exorcet]

16 hours ago, blkspade said:

I think you missed where the problem is. It's not with mission config, but AI behavior. You can intercept OR you can escort. You cannot divert the course of an AI aircraft.

AI planes can actually have many routes at once thanks to switch waypoint. The trick is to plant an alternative route (or 12) between waypoints on the main route. Force the AI to skip the alt route with a switch waypoint on the previous waypoint, but have a triggered switched waypoint to activate the new route. Not only can you divert bombers like this, but you can make tankers and AWACS retreat from enemy fighters.

 

The current problem is that the mission maker needs to add these to the mission. They could be default AI behaviors, and I think they should be in the future.

[Nahen]

The problem is that in some situations you have to "replace" one AI mashine with another because it will not be possible to "normally" implement certain "plans". But that's not a problem either. Replacing "Aerial-1-1" with "Aerial-2-1" goes on so quickly that almost no one notices that something has disappeared and something new has appeared in the same place. 
This is how you have to deal with, for example, the landing of an AI plane after interception so that it lands at a different airport than in its original flight plan - for example, the one to which it needs to be escorted.

There are quite a few "options" that would be nice to see in the mission editor as "ready" to use behaviors, settings of AI machines.
But "everything" can be done, it just takes some good combinations

[F-2]

https://books.google.com/books?id=3JEpAQAAIAAJ&q=apg-63(v)2+society+of+experimental+test+pilots&dq=apg-63(v)2+society+of+experimental+test+pilots&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjb4a2mq4T8AhXhMlkFHdNrCRYQ6AF6BAgDEAM#apg-63(v)2 aesa
 

 

APG-63(v)2 flight test data?

[Superbug Echo]