DCS: F-15C Poll

[Spurts]

19 hours ago, NineLine said:

Probably best to wait and see what they give us instead of fighting over guesses and whatnot. 

But fighting with strangers over things that don't matter is what the internet does best!

[Nahen]

We will wait... Ok, and when we wait, who will judge if what we got corresponds to the real model of the machine? Who of you actually fly / flew the EF-2000 BlockI? or the F-15C?
I treat each of the modules that have already been released, are under development and will be released in the future as a SIMULATION GAME - not as a simulator of a specific type of aircraft. The only thing that can be considered a simulation is holding the control stick in your hand;) And this is on the condition that the stick is a copy of a specific stick;) Everything else is an attempt to reflect the actual model of the aircraft and its characteristics plus the fantasy / imagination of the creators. But as - I mentioned earlier - I risk saying that WWII aircraft and those whose production ended sometime between 1970 and 1780 may be considered a simulation ... although this is just a risky statement and not necessarily in line with reality.

 

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 8/21/2022 at 10:20 AM, unlikely_spider said:

Because older planes are more fun

Stuck & rudder skills and classic gauges > learning all the correct button sequences on yet another MFD screen

Don't get me wrong, I have spent a lot of time in the Hornet and a few others, but it was because I wanted to experience the campaigns in DCS and not because I especially like to look at a computer screen on my computer screen.

When I think of a Modern combat flight simulator

I do not think of museum relics, I think of current events.

Planes I am liable to see in a news reports.

Not variants of planes that were heavily out dated by the time I was born.

On that note DCS needs more modern AI assets like Growlers, Super Hornets (A favourite of mine) newer missiles like ASRAAM IRIST Derbys

Noughties upgraded F-4s MiG-21s and F-5s too, so that I can sim things like the 2011 UN Security Council resolution 1973

Or Hypothetical Scenarios with important regional powers like a fictional Russo-Turkish conflict or KSA v Gulf state fight

Maybe PRC vs some of its neighbours

Things like the Yom Kippur war or Mole Cricket 19, hardly 'modern' as they were events that took place more than 50 years ago

Edited August 26, 2022 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Nahen]

15 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

.....

 

So you want Star Wars;)
Growler? As far as I know, today it is one of the most closely guarded aircraft in terms of its avionics and equipment ... But if you want, Boeing will send documentation to ED quickly so that you can fly with it ...

Unless you just need an simulator like a Ace Combat... then you can prepare the documentation yourself and let someone make a Growler based on it ...

It's really so hard to understand that if you want a simulator and not an airborne arcade shooter, you need documentation of a real machine to recreate it ? Otherwise you will get a fiction like the F-22 mod based on the F-15C and reflecting the dreams of its creator?

[Silver_Dragon]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:23 PM, Nahen said:

We will wait... Ok, and when we wait, who will judge if what we got corresponds to the real model of the machine? Who of you actually fly / flew the EF-2000 BlockI? or the F-15C?
I treat each of the modules that have already been released, are under development and will be released in the future as a SIMULATION GAME - not as a simulator of a specific type of aircraft. The only thing that can be considered a simulation is holding the control stick in your hand;) And this is on the condition that the stick is a copy of a specific stick;) Everything else is an attempt to reflect the actual model of the aircraft and its characteristics plus the fantasy / imagination of the creators. But as - I mentioned earlier - I risk saying that WWII aircraft and those whose production ended sometime between 1970 and 1780 may be considered a simulation ... although this is just a risky statement and not necessarily in line with reality.

 

On the forum, has appears some SME from the USAF (F-16), UsNavy (F/A-18C), UsArmy (AH-64D) and other countries... the same with other modules.

EFA,  The TG leader CEO has a old LW squadron comander and have other old LW members... some folks has from spanish, italian, german, UK air forces here, and surely someone will be old F-15C / F-15E pilots....

[Nahen]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

On the forum, has appears some SME from the USAF (F-16), UsNavy (F/A-18C), UsArmy (AH-64D) and other countries... the same with other modules.

EFA,  The TG leader CEO has a old LW squadron comander and have other old LW members... some folks has from spanish, italian, german, UK air forces here, and surely someone will be old F-15C / F-15E pilots....

Ok, how many of them, while flying in the army, had the opportunity to actually "reach the limits" of their machines? Because as far as I know, no air force accepts the pilots who overdo it too much...

[Exorcet]

45 minutes ago, Nahen said:

It's really so hard to understand that if you want a simulator and not an airborne arcade shooter, you need documentation of a real machine to recreate it ? Otherwise you will get a fiction like the F-22 mod based on the F-15C and reflecting the dreams of its creator?

I don't know why people throw away all nuance in these kinds of discussions. Classified information poses challenges to modeling aircraft and newer ones tends to be more classified (although that's not always true) but that doesn't mean any attempt at modeling them is fiction.

Just the existence of something like DCS should show otherwise. DCS is a simulator, ie it aims to create a realistic portrayal of aircraft. Even if some parameter is not known with certainty, you can place reasonable bounds on it using physics, or research, or whatever.

Before this is misunderstood, I'm not arguing against the idea that the most modern aircraft will probably be less accurate than something a decade or two old. I'm arguing against the use of terms like "imaginary" or "fiction". Those aren't the correct terms to use to describe something that is actually a simulator. You can do better than guess or make things up to fill in for information that is missing.

[Nahen]

11 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I don't know why people throw away all nuance in these kinds of discussions. Classified information poses challenges to modeling aircraft and newer ones tends to be more classified (although that's not always true) but that doesn't mean any attempt at modeling them is fiction.

 

Yes, this is fiction - if someone makes up something, guesses without data, it's 99% fiction. Unless he is an engineer overseeing the technological process of changing the color in a pencil - then there is a chance that he will specify a specific color by asking what is this on producig line. I do not think that among the creators of ED there were specialists in the production of, for example, AN / APG-77 radars and "guessing" their parameters for the creation of the F-22 module...

Today, hardly any model of modern machines in DCS correctly reflects the work of radars. I cannot judge why. I have contact with pilots flying the MiG-29 and F-16C Block52. I will not quote their opinion about radars in the MiG-29 and F-16C modules in DCS. I know the ED line on this issue, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality.
Thus, it is impossible to "invent" the operation of the system without even basic data about it. Hence, we have the radars we have, which frustrate many virtual pilots playing in DCS.

Fortunately, I personally have been treating DCS for a long time as the best simulation game for today - but not a simulator. So much. That is why I am so fiercely punkt ideas to bring the "newest" planes to the DCS. Although ... one UFO this way or that won't make a special difference ...

[Exorcet]

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Yes, this is fiction - if someone makes up something, guesses without data, it's 99% fiction.

Yes, making things up is fiction. It's also not what I'm talking about.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Unless he is an engineer overseeing the technological process of changing the color in a pencil - then there is a chance that he will specify a specific color by asking what is this on producig line. I do not think that among the creators of ED there were specialists in the production of, for example, AN / APG-77 radars and "guessing" their parameters for the creation of the F-22 module...

You don't need to directly involved with the development of something to model it. Everything follows the laws of physics, and while some details may be classified, other may not be.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Today, hardly any model of modern machines in DCS correctly reflects the work of radars.

This is what I'm talking about. DCS has adequate radar modeling. Just because there are faults with the modeling does not make it "fiction". Even in professional fields there are differing levels of fidelity used depending on the goals of the modeler. To just sweep something away because it is not the highest fidelity model potentially shows a lack of understanding of how simulation even works.

2 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I know the ED line on this issue, but unfortunately it has nothing to do with reality.

This is quite clearly wrong, or at least hyperbole, when these radars do in fact model what the real radars do. It's not perfect, and I get that there are even major omissions, but that does not make something imaginary. That's sloppy labeling and I don't really see how it helps anyone or how it helps improve the sim.

[Nahen]

4 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

You don't need to directly involved with the development of something to model it. Everything follows the laws of physics, and while some details may be classified, other may not be.

RLY?? In fact, there is nothing to discuss ... Do you know that the Russians and the Chinese have the same physics as the US? And after some 30 years, they finally made planes that supposedly can measure up to the F-22 ...
So think, think about it, and maybe in the next 20 years you will make a sensible F-22 module for DCS;)

[NineLine]

So what does all this chatter have to do with the thread title? Please stay on topic or I will just shut it down. Thanks.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

8 hours ago, Nahen said:

So you want Star Wars;)
Growler? As far as I know, today it is one of the most closely guarded aircraft in terms of its avionics and equipment ... But if you want, Boeing will send documentation to ED quickly so that you can fly with it ...

Unless you just need an simulator like a Ace Combat... then you can prepare the documentation yourself and let someone make a Growler based on it ...

It's really so hard to understand that if you want a simulator and not an airborne arcade shooter, you need documentation of a real machine to recreate it ? Otherwise you will get a fiction like the F-22 mod based on the F-15C and reflecting the dreams of its creator?

No, I am not a star wars fan, in my generation we grew up with Halo.

Now something can be said about emulation of capabilities vs simulation. Especially for an AI Unit.

Many sims that have earned lots of praise from our generation did engage in emulating the not so well documented and unknown
Do you believe that the MiG-29s FM and systems in Falcon 3.0 were based on the abundance of documentation ED had when it made its new MiG-29 FM in 2018?

The answer is no, known estimates were fair enough for a non player asset, that is if the goal was to make a more or less authentic experience.

Same can be said for the M1 Tank Platoon I really doubt it had the most authentically modeled T-80Us or Bs


You could also take it up with ED, they already have an F-117
Wonder where those documents came from if we follow your line of thinking...


Ontop the topic at hand though, yes

I'd be a serious fan of a Singapore or Korean F-15E
Those are my favourites, these military sims seem to focus too much on Europe
 

[Superbug Echo]

Eagle Dynam...Reaper 160 requesting a full fidelity Eagle Coupe?  Ummm...ED this is Reaper 160,..............................................................................................................................................

 

[bies]

At this moment i would say our best bet may be RAZBAM making fighter Eagle F-15A or C after they successfully finish Strike Eagle. But who knows what's going on behind the scenes.

[jaguara5]

+1 for a full fidelity  F-15C

[tomcat_driver]

Yes! 

+1

[HiJack]

+1 For full fidelity F-15C. I would definetly buy this unit if ED made it. Any 3rd party I would think twice.

 

EDIT: I will buy the F-15E as well but that is not the fighter I like, the F-15C is the one!

Edited November 13, 2022 by HiJack

[blkspade]

I think anyone that's been apart of this community long enough could make some reasonable extrapolations as to why there is no FF F-15C. Like how much has it been requested just to be shot down?  Between the data that makes up systems in the FF -18 -16, and it being practically impossible for a quality Razbam -15E without systems data that would obviously be applicable to the -15C, it's little outrageous something so requested and possible continues to go ignored. It probably has a lot to do with a supposed large single player use of the sim, and the fact various things about A-A AI being very broken throughout.  Strike missions are just easier to make even with ground unit AI being broken/limited in it's own ways.

A-A is explicitly more exciting in MP, if that is all you reduce the jet to. I guess they lack the imagination for SP content for a single role fighter. Besides the improvements to AI BFM/BVR, they need a mechanism to allow you to do an intercept, redirect and escort AI aircraft without the intent of a shoot down. One of the F-14 missions is basically broken due to the lack of that logic. That also plays into Guard actually being used realistically, in SP or MP. I used to occasionally pull up on enemy Su-25s/A-10s in MP, and give them the option to turn around and go home. In text though. You should be able to radio the enemy. On Guard Radio menu to enemy, with probability of compliance based on range of it's own CAP/escort and/or armament. Smarter use of a dice-roll than just countermeasures. HVAAs need some kind of logic to extend away from a threat, instead of maintaining an orbit just to do last second evasive maneuvers. Besides reducing the ability to pluck them out of the sky at range, it lets your own help you to help them in escorts. A FF Air Superiority fighter can be made to make sense in ways that make the sim better as a whole. Or just keep leaving that money on the table. That said, the E would lose potential sales if the C was on the horizon.

[F-2]

Lots of things get requested, lots of things get requested a lot, only so many can be worked on at once. The F-15C just hasn’t had its day yet.

[Nahen]

21 hours ago, blkspade said:

I think anyone that's been apart of this community long enough could make some reasonable extrapolations as to why there is no FF F-15C. Like how much has it been requested just to be shot down?  Between the data that makes up systems in the FF -18 -16, and it being practically impossible for a quality Razbam -15E without systems data that would obviously be applicable to the -15C, it's little outrageous something so requested and possible continues to go ignored. It probably has a lot to do with a supposed large single player use of the sim, and the fact various things about A-A AI being very broken throughout.  Strike missions are just easier to make even with ground unit AI being broken/limited in it's own ways.

A-A is explicitly more exciting in MP, if that is all you reduce the jet to. I guess they lack the imagination for SP content for a single role fighter. Besides the improvements to AI BFM/BVR, they need a mechanism to allow you to do an intercept, redirect and escort AI aircraft without the intent of a shoot down. One of the F-14 missions is basically broken due to the lack of that logic. That also plays into Guard actually being used realistically, in SP or MP. I used to occasionally pull up on enemy Su-25s/A-10s in MP, and give them the option to turn around and go home. In text though. You should be able to radio the enemy. On Guard Radio menu to enemy, with probability of compliance based on range of it's own CAP/escort and/or armament. Smarter use of a dice-roll than just countermeasures. HVAAs need some kind of logic to extend away from a threat, instead of maintaining an orbit just to do last second evasive maneuvers. Besides reducing the ability to pluck them out of the sky at range, it lets your own help you to help them in escorts. A FF Air Superiority fighter can be made to make sense in ways that make the sim better as a whole. Or just keep leaving that money on the table. That said, the E would lose potential sales if the C was on the horizon.

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.

[Spurts]

9 minutes ago, 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 could set up ME to have an enemy plane fly along side me and escort me out of its airspace?

[Exorcet]

22 hours ago, blkspade said:

I think anyone that's been apart of this community long enough could make some reasonable extrapolations as to why there is no FF F-15C. Like how much has it been requested just to be shot down?  Between the data that makes up systems in the FF -18 -16, and it being practically impossible for a quality Razbam -15E without systems data that would obviously be applicable to the -15C, it's little outrageous something so requested and possible continues to go ignored. It probably has a lot to do with a supposed large single player use of the sim, and the fact various things about A-A AI being very broken throughout.  Strike missions are just easier to make even with ground unit AI being broken/limited in it's own ways.

A-A is explicitly more exciting in MP, if that is all you reduce the jet to. I guess they lack the imagination for SP content for a single role fighter. Besides the improvements to AI BFM/BVR, they need a mechanism to allow you to do an intercept, redirect and escort AI aircraft without the intent of a shoot down. One of the F-14 missions is basically broken due to the lack of that logic. That also plays into Guard actually being used realistically, in SP or MP. I used to occasionally pull up on enemy Su-25s/A-10s in MP, and give them the option to turn around and go home. In text though. You should be able to radio the enemy. On Guard Radio menu to enemy, with probability of compliance based on range of it's own CAP/escort and/or armament. Smarter use of a dice-roll than just countermeasures. HVAAs need some kind of logic to extend away from a threat, instead of maintaining an orbit just to do last second evasive maneuvers. Besides reducing the ability to pluck them out of the sky at range, it lets your own help you to help them in escorts. A FF Air Superiority fighter can be made to make sense in ways that make the sim better as a whole. Or just keep leaving that money on the table. That said, the E would lose potential sales if the C was on the horizon.

The F-15's air to air focus shouldn't impact its viability DCS. It's pretty much exactly like the F-14 and should have exactly as much appeal. This is besides the fact that the F-15 can carry AG weapons, including LGB's.

And air to air fighter is also no less interesting single player than it is in MP. Remember that back when FC3 was the only way to even fly fighters in DCS, the F-15 was no less popular when it came to single player missions. As someone that players SP only, I find AA AI more interesting than ground AI anyway. Air AI is dynamic by nature, while ground forces are basically static unless scripted to be otherwise.

As far as E vs C, they don't have to worry about competing with each other any more than the Hornet and Viper do.

[Nahen]

37 minutes ago, Spurts said:

I could set up ME to have an enemy plane fly along side me and escort me out of its airspace?

I don't know, but you can make the AI, after you get close to it, follow you and disconnect in the designated area or land at the designated airport. I suppose it can be done as you write - but I never needed it so I never tried. Since the wingmen fly in formation and can be sent somewhere by radio commands, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Spurts]

Well that gives me some fun mission ideas

[Superbug Echo]