The F-15 and MP gameplay

[Grimes]

This is sort of a crossover thread from something similar at the Commanders Round Table forums. I'm merely posting this poll here because its something I believe people should voice their opinions on.

 

Its no secret the F-15 has received a performance boost in FC2 over what it was in FC1.12. Some may argue its true to form, others may say its way to powerful. Couple this with the changes to semi-active missiles and the R-27ET and you can understandably see why players think the F-15 is way to good. Whether or not it was a huge improvement overall is debatable.

 

I'm a fan of "class warfare" sort of games. I like the idea of having to choose a specific class (read "airplane) and having to use its advantages to their optimum to win a fight. Its why I have way to many hours playing Team Fortress 2. I admit, the difference between aircraft aren't as drastic as those in TF2, but they are still there. TF2 is also balanced based on gameplay, flight sims are supposed to be balanced on factual performance information. Suffice to say there are user end changes we can make to effect balance. Its all a mix of game modification, mission design, player attitude, and mission rules.

 

So please vote and post your opinions.

[Sov13t]

I voted: It is fine the way it is.

 

And here is why:

 

Option 1 was All aircraft readily available on both sides. This is pretty much the way it is now and as such I chose Option 6 because the "grow a pair and adapt" sounds bad ass :P

 

Option 2: Only 1 side with F-15s. Well, what will happen is that the blue side will be packed while the red side will be empty. Since it is not a constant number of people on the server this will not work. Unless it is an official event. Sooner or later it will be come Fs vs Fs anyway.

 

Option 3... Was an easy one to cross off right away. No.

 

Option 4 Limited Payloads. I believe the payloads should contain short range missiles and I fit them no matter which aircraft I fly, but at the same time if it is possible and the pilot is willing, let them.

 

Option 5 The F-15 Shouldn't Be Online. Won't happen.

 

Option 6. It is fine the way it is. I chose this option because I believe there isn't anything that can be done that will not cause more grief and whining from one side or the other.

 

It is unfortunate that the F-15 did receive A LOT more attention than any other craft in this recent patch/release. There could have been done a lot of other smaller things to introduce new features among ALL aircraft and not just one. There are questionable decisions in terms of the missile characteristics and that has already spawned numerous pages of debates, I for one am still puzzled by the 3.5 magnifier given to so called "Advanced Warheads" while the 27ER with a much heavier warhead requires sometimes up to 3 SHOTS to kill an enemy craft :music_whistling: Perhaps this will be addressed in A-10, F-16/18 series. Network code is a mess, and a pile of good features that FC1 had were removed.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Sov13t

[RIPTIDE]

The only storm really was the introduction of the AIM-120C. Its not about the F-15C per se, but about the weapon that was introduced. As for implementing weapons R-77 on Su-27 for example, the problem there is that the flanker variants that carry the '77 or can carry the '77 are modernized more than just the ability to carry a new missile, with new designations Su-27SM etc. Any modernisation on the F-15C (engines for example), new missiles 120C variants, the F-15C kept its designation.

 

So in short... most of the argument is about the use of 1980's missile vs 1990's missile on the two respective airframes. Rather unfortunate.

Edited August 22, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[104th_Crunch]

I can't vote on one.

 

"Only 1 side with F-15s and they should be outnumbed by at least 1.5 to 1."

 

"Limited Payloads required (no aircraft can carry 100% active missiles)"

 

I like both these options, but only for an event, or a server's mission rotation, or as an option on various multiple servers. It could be a realistic way of mission design if you consider real world resources. Having the F-15 readily available on both coalitions has it pluses as well I think though, and should not be taken away as an option completely.

 

I don't like the 'R-77s need to be allowed on Su-27' option since it is unrealistic (just make DCS:Su-27SM :) please!), and the "The F-15 shouldn't be online" option since it gets rid of another variation of aircraft to have fun in.

[3Sqn_Sven]

I think people need to grow a pair WRT the F-15 capabilities, however I also dislike flying F-15 vs F-15 for the sake of realism. I've often suggested F15's in a limited number on the one side. An example would be US and UKR on Blue vs Russia on Red, or US only on Blue, Russia on Red, but Blue is outnumbered. The 169th was doing both of these back in 2004 and had the flavor of game play right,so, buggers me why people have to have 15's vs 15's all the time (and still winge). In fact if I remember correctly, in 04 when I started flying online servers with Eagles on both sides were shunned!

 

At the end of the day the Eagle is the more capable fighter BVR and I'm happy to be outnumbered as an Eagle, and likewise I'm happy to fight against them in a 29A and use tactics to try to get to the merge.

[Pilotasso]

I have a suggestion to make in parallel with the options on vote. IF F-15's on both sides, different weapons and plane quantities. Example: Israeli F-15's with AIM-120B's and Americans with AIM-120C's. (Wished we had Python and derby missiles) This is to change the tactics we can see on either side.

 

Grimes: I think your remark about F-15 increase in performance is misleading because all other aircraft received improvements too. (namely, climb rates and engine power at altitude) The difference is in the missiles NOT having huge maddog ranges anymore forcing people to support their shots. Again R-77 received similar upgrades as AMRAAM.

[MAD MAX]

Funny, in the end you will be play in sim of only F-15...

In russian squads and servers F-15 will be fly only with AIM-7, without AIM-120.

[Pilotasso]

you can change loadouts.

[Teknetinium]

Its fine the way it is, Like Soviet mentioned there is allot of things that would make life easier for Russian birds that were not implemented.

example, MIg-29S is not able to use TWS and not able to fire at two targets at same time. impact counter. ERs miss from blank range, like Su-27 radar from 15km would be weaker them Aim120s.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Teknetinium

[MAD MAX]

I have a suggestion to make in parallel with the options on vote. IF F-15's on both sides, different weapons and plane quantities. Example: Israeli F-15's with AIM-120B's and Americans with AIM-120C's. (Wished we had Python and derby missiles) This is to change the tactics we can see on either side.

 

Grimes: I think your remark about F-15 increase in performance is misleading because all other aircraft received improvements too. (namely, climb rates and engine power at altitude) The difference is in the missiles NOT having huge maddog ranges anymore forcing people to support their shots. Again R-77 received similar upgrades as AMRAAM.

 

We want to have R-27P, RVV-AE-PD/SD/MD. R-77 its-1999, AIM-120C its 2005-2007.

Funny game you play guys.

[Pilotasso]

Its fine the way it is, Like Soviet mentioned there is allot of things that would make life easier for Russian birds that were not implemented.

example, MIg-29S is not able to use TWS and not able to fire at two targets at same time. impact counter. ERs miss from blank range, like Su-27 radar from 15km would be weaker them Aim120s.

 

 

There is no evidence that the Mig-29 model 9-13 was capable of multi targeting capability. It is present in the batch of Mig-29SMT's rejected by Algeria and the Mig-29K sold to India an Russian navies recently.

 

With that said, the representation in game is correct except with the fact that R-77 probably was never actively fielded by russian airforce (let alone Ukraines).

Edited August 22, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Pilotasso]

We want to have R-27P, RVV-AE-PD/SD/MD. R-77 its-1999, AIM-120C its 2005-2007.

Funny game you play guys.

 

Incorrect, RVV-SD/MD is not in service yet. AIM-120C saw service in late 1990's. Dont forget there are several different C models. The current C5 and C7s indeed are 21st century missiles, but there were earlier versions. Currently the games engine cannot make the distinction as they differ mainly in electronics and algorithms.

[Boberro]

I voted: It is fine the way it is.

It is unfortunate that the F-15 did receive A LOT more attention than any other craft in this recent patch/release. There could have been done a lot of other smaller things to introduce new features among ALL aircraft and not just one. There are questionable decisions in terms of the missile characteristics and that has already spawned numerous pages of debates, I for one am still puzzled by the 3.5 magnifier given to so called "Advanced Warheads" while the 27ER with a much heavier warhead requires sometimes up to 3 SHOTS to kill an enemy craft :music_whistling: Perhaps this will be addressed in A-10, F-16/18 series. Network code is a mess, and a pile of good features that FC1 had were removed.

 

Not only F-15 has been upgraded. Look at ground pounders. Su-25T got new Vikhrs - much more accurate than earlier version... A-10A is faster. Ground pounders are happier ;]

Regarding to pure A-A... heh it's not F-15 fault that Su is worse....but yes I'd like to see missile impact counter. It is key feature for fighting IMHO.

 

Its fine the way it is, Like Soviet mentioned there is allot of things that would make life easier for Russian birds that were not implemented.

example, MIg-29S is not able to use TWS and not able to fire at two targets at same time. impact counter. ERs miss from blank range, like Su-27 radar from 15km would be weaker them Aim120s.

 

I doubt MiG-29 can do TWS... but weird behaviour of RU radars is interesting.

 

 

Overall why don't fight SARH vs SARH, or ER vs AIM-7 +4x 120 (F-15 can carry only 4 SARH, Su eight). SARH vs SARH is more interesting IMHO than pure Active vs Active.

[MAD MAX]

Then add Su-30 with R-77 :)

[Pilotasso]

Just a small correction to my post in the start of this page:

 

Currently the SMT's rejected by Algeria fly for Russian air force. They will probably be fielded with RVV series missiles when they reach service.

Indian air force has upgraded its Fulcrums with ZHUK PESA radars as did Malaysia Mig-29's including 2 target multi targeting capability with RVV-AE, but are slated to be retired soon (malaysian examples only).

 

Model 9-13 was built in low numbers and scattered among ex soviet states, but none operate the R-77 along with them. Russia has upgraded its fleets of Mig-29A model 9-12 to partial S standard with intention to bring them progressively to full S standard in stages. To my knowledge they never fully completed the conversion but the planes were called Mig-29S anyway. I think this is the model we fly in Lockon. Someone more in the know correct me.

[Teknetinium]

Scrap the idea of 1990 and scrap the idea that DCS need all the data on missile behavior, what they need is the flight characteristics, everything about missiles and radar is educated guises. We as gamers dont get the advanceed avionics anyway, A-10C will probably not be even close to real A-10 simulator for the army when it comes to weapon deployment., we have Ka-50 this mean we could have Su-27SM. as accurate as Ka-50.

 

Pilotasso u should definitely scrap the idea of counting how many went to service, its there if yiou have the money.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Teknetinium

[104th_Crunch]

Funny, in the end you will be play in sim of only F-15...

In russian squads and servers F-15 will be fly only with AIM-7, without AIM-120.

 

Great! This is what I mean. Different servers with different options. Nice work, nothing wrong with that.

[RIPTIDE]

There is no evidence that the Mig-29 model 9-13 was capable of multi targeting capability. It is present in the batch of Mig-29SMT's rejected by Algeria and the Mig-29K sold to India an Russian navies recently.

 

With that said, the representation in game is correct except with the fact that R-77 probably was never actively fielded by russian airforce (let alone Ukraines).

 

" An "SNP-1/SNP-2" switch is installed in the cockpit to supress the Track-While-Flyby mode's automatic change to Single-Target-Track. The weapons system then automatically identifies two targets entering engagement range and fires upon both of them using any weapons that don't require a radar lock. " - Yefim Gordon, "MiG-29" :book:

 

He talks about the 9.13 in that piece.

Edited August 22, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[VTJS17_Fire]

We want to have R-27P, RVV-AE-PD/SD/MD. R-77 its-1999, AIM-120C its 2005-2007.

 

In russian squads and servers F-15 will be fly only with AIM-7, without AIM-120.

 

... F-15 with only AIM-7 in 1999 ... very real. :smilewink:

 

Plus, AIM-7 max. speed is Mach 3.31 and R-27ER is Mach 4.01 at best altitude. Both semi-active ... that's not "unfair"?

And R-77 is faster than AIM-120C, little less range. :smartass:

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[GGTharos]

A-10C will be far closer to the military sim than you think in terms of all capability.

There are differences (ie. older version of LITENING II software modeled, there are certain things concerning weapons use are missing, and of course there are differences in the ECM/ECCM and counter-measure capability) but in general you will get a very, very close realistic experience.

The avionics in A-10C will blow your mind.

 

Scrap the idea of 1990 and scrap the idea that DCS need all the data on missile behavior, what they need is the flight characteristics, everything about missiles and radar is educated guises. We as gamers dont get the advanceed avionics anyway, A-10C will probably not be even close to real A-10 simulator for the army when it comes to weapon deployment., we have Ka-50 this mean we could have Su-27SM. as accurate as Ka-50.

 

Pilotasso u should definitely scrap the idea of counting how many went to service, its there if yiou have the money.

[Novum]

Interesting problem.. But the missiles and Aircraft in FC2 should have more AFM then they have today..

 

Also tactics... did i miss something?

 

Different missiles

Different tactics

[RIPTIDE]

A-10C will be far closer to the military sim than you think in terms of all capability.

There are differences (ie. older version of LITENING II software modeled, there are certain things concerning weapons use are missing, and of course there are differences in the ECM/ECCM and counter-measure capability) but in general you will get a very, very close realistic experience.

The avionics in A-10C will blow your mind.

With respect, I do believe this thread is about fighters. And as such is purely about FC2.0 and MP play.

[Pilotasso]

" An "SNP-1/SNP-2" switch is installed in the cockpit to supress the Track-While-Flyby mode's automatic change to Single-Target-Track. The weapons system then automatically identifies two targets entering engagement range and fires upon both of them using any weapons that don't require a radar lock. " - Yefim Gordon, "MiG-29" :book:

 

He talks about the 9.13 in that piece.

 

"dont require lock"??? :huh:

 

Yefim Gordon is getting better and better. He also says the SU-37 is in service and will kill the Raptor using its Novator passive radar missile ;)

[RIPTIDE]

"dont require lock"??? :huh:

 

It also applies to 27T ;)

 

But ya you're probably right... its all a big conspiracy. :megalol::megalol:

 

In fairness Pilotasso, you had a similar conversation about 2 or 3 years ago in a real old thread I was recently browsing.

Edited August 22, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[MAD MAX]

... F-15 with only AIM-7 in 1999 ... very real. :smilewink:

 

Plus, AIM-7 max. speed is Mach 3.31 and R-27ER is Mach 4.01 at best altitude. Both semi-active ... that's not "unfair"?

And R-77 is faster than AIM-120C, little less range. :smartass:

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

 

Because AIM-120 now is chit rocket.

R-77 faster? but she loose speed more and faster then AIM-120, and rang more little then AIM-120...