FC 2.0?? su27 vs f15???

[RedTiger]

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

- Mark Twain, (unsourced, however ;) )

 

Boy the times have changed huh..but where have we heard this before? It will be funny to hear the wails of agony if we ever see DCS: Eagle vs. DCS: Fulcrum.

Edited April 6, 2010 by RedTiger

[Exorcet]

Well, now that I'm finally online, I think I'll add my opinion.

 

I fly the F-15 mostly, but I do like the Su-27. The past few sessions online, I've been reintroducing myself to the Flanker.

 

I hopped on today and managed a couple of kills, one being an Eagle. Given that half the time I forget to check my RWR all the way at the bottom of the cockpit and the method used to display IFF on the Flanker's HUD eluded me at first, the plane must not be that bad if I can manage to do anything at all.

 

As an Eagle pilot, I've also felt the frustration of being ambushed by ET's. And I definitely look out for HOBS R-73's up close.

 

The F-15 is the superior plane (as it should be given the models we have in Lock On), but the flying the Su-27 isn't instant death.

 

But of course, I must leave a caveat, I've only been flying online for the past week.

[Pilotasso]

You will only get ambushed by ET's now if you let someone pass your sensor coverage unnoticed or you got notched and then shlemmed.

[aaron886]

Thanks ED for your hard work and for dealing with the classic Flanker Fanbois by letting the facts speak for themselves.

[Pilotasso]

I only thank for more realism.

[kingneptune117]

Hello gentl. this my new thread is about unbelievable strange and non acceptable flight caracteristics of this two jets. In dogfight where su27 is a king(in reality), f15 get`s win so easy in close visual guns DOGFIGHT, of course if player with f15 knows all the tricks. So how is that possible?!

In last tournament on TCL 1 vs 1 gunsonly, f15 has taken the won and in finals both were flying with f15 which make things even more sad.

In LOFC su27 vs f15, in tight turns su27 need to be more agile, but f15 is so strong and when we fly circle with 500kmh speed, f15 get`s on 6 to su27, this is so funny, i mean wtf???

So many airshows where su27 showing all his dogfight power, and in this, how you like to call it "flight simulator" he is so slow versus f15.

So why are you guy`s doing this, is it cos of Americans and there jet, and there BUCKS???...this is not realistic, f15 can only go for energy menagment and nothing else...mig29 very good on airshows, and in game in dogfight that jet sucks, you need to be real ACE like PIRKE:) from Serbia to fly this thing in dogfight...

Soo at the end of my short thread, i would like to say "don`t go for FC 2.0" if this things stay as they are right now, or i will give you money for nothing, same sh*** all over again.

Good project, but make it more realistic in flight.

 

I am bad english spokeman so cheers!

 

Ummm....

 

First of all what makes you think the SU-27 is superior in a dogfight? The F-15C has around 104 air to air kills and has NEVER been shot down..not even once. The SU-27 does not have those kind of statistics to back it up.

 

In real life, the SU-27 bleeds of speed much quicker than the F-15. In terms of dogfighting, the two are very close but in reality the F-15 has the edge. The F-15C was made specifically for air to air purposes unlike the SU-27.

 

The F-15 has proven itself as one of the greatest birds to ever be built.

 

Edited April 6, 2010 by kingneptune117

[kingneptune117]

:megalol: I can fly and SU's instead, do you can fly anything else (A 10 not counted)? btw I expected "answer" like this bcs I get use to it to listen like those when you dont have any for real. Nevermind, all ppl here get the point about all.

 

When I saw new brand LO 2.0 with pics of F 15 everywhere shining around, and only pic of SU 27 in run with a lot of flares behind, and one of Mig 29 burried into ground, I realised whats going on here, and what was goal in LO 2.0. :music_whistling:

 

Your signature makes you entire statement invalid. Just look at it your clearing dissing the 15.

[aaron886]

I only thank for more realism.

 

 

Then you certainly don't deserve any updates at all. Have a little gratitude, or go build your own simulator. :noexpression:

[Wilde]

The F-15 is the superior plane (as it should be given the models we have in Lock On)

 

Well it is. But in LOFC it is more superior than in reality. There are multiple reasons. In the game you get new Eagles for free and it only hurts your ego when you get shot. Yes, that's why I call it game, not simulation. And of course there are a number of features the game lacks versus the real Russian birds. That's especially for BVR combat. Has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times. Another thing is realistic environment. In a real war you couldn't just fly over unprotected hostile ground scanning for prey all the time. Yet in this game that's normal especially in MP.

 

People claim it's all about realism. But it's not "real realism". It's more like those card games from the 80ies ("Top Trumps" or something?!), where you beat your buddy if your card read 270km/h top speed and his only 245... ;)

[Ven]

Well it is. But in LOFC it is more superior than in reality. There are multiple reasons. In the game you get new Eagles for free and it only hurts your ego when you get shot. Yes, that's why I call it game, not simulation. And of course there are a number of features the game lacks versus the real Russian birds. That's especially for BVR combat. Has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times. Another thing is realistic environment. In a real war you couldn't just fly over unprotected hostile ground scanning for prey all the time. Yet in this game that's normal especially in MP.

 

People claim it's all about realism. But it's not "real realism". It's more like those card games from the 80ies ("Top Trumps" or something?!), where you beat your buddy if your card read 270km/h top speed and his only 245... ;)

 

Well this is not Street Fighter. There's no "balancing" of each character. As mentioned by jessi, if you believe there's performance issue between aircrafts, you should provide the facts and I'm sure ED will take a serious look. Without it, it's just your opinions and speculations.

 

In a real war you couldn't just fly over unprotected hostile ground scanning for prey all the time. Yet in this game that's normal especially in MP.

 

You can't fly over "unprotected" area? No, it's not "real" but it's "realism". There's obvious difference.

[RvEFuSiOn]

 

The F-15C was made specifically for air to air purposes unlike the SU-27.

 

 

 

This line you posted up there tells everyone how much you know actually about aircraft and what they are built for, let alone their performances...

I need not say any more.

[EtherealN]

And of course there are a number of features the game lacks versus the real Russian birds. That's especially for BVR combat.

 

Same goes for the F-15. You don't think real F-15C pilots fly without their datalinks? Both sides are hit by that specific problem in FC. To my mind the biggest issue for the russian birds is the lack of in-service ARH missiles. Ways around that of course - like the ET - but that requires that the tactics used permit them to deny first-shot (for example through forcing the Eagles defensive with ER's).

[Pilotasso]

Then you certainly don't deserve any updates at all. Have a little gratitude, or go build your own simulator. :noexpression:

 

What the heck are you talking about?

[aaron886]

This line you posted up there tells everyone how much you know actually about aircraft and what they are built for, let alone their performances...

I need not say any more.

 

He's got a point Fusion. The F-15 is very good at what it was made to do... It's a fantastic energy fighter. The Sukhoi has long been hyped-up with airshow flips and other publicity, but there isnt a lot of good hard data available. The stuff ED has and uses is probably the best possible. Fact is, the Eagle's thrust to weight ratio allows it to stay at corner at a higher G than the Sukhoi, and leaves a better chance extension or being at 'over-the-top' speed at any given time. Those are things that really matter. Rate always beats radius in the hands of a smart pilot.

 

Only thing that bothers me is the flaps on the Eagle. They don't cause enough drag. Also, in my testing, it's almost as if a sustained rate vs. Mach graph would be an "inverted" curve in Lock On because of weird drag modeling. Doesn't matter what plane you're in.

[EtherealN]

I believe Yo-Yo has fixed the low-mach (I think it's below 0.4) behaviour, and that's being tested. Bit unsure about the status on flaps behaviours though, but that something is fishy is known and hopefully there will be a way to fix it before too long. :)

[aaron886]

I believe Yo-Yo has fixed the low-mach (I think it's below 0.4) behaviour, and that's being tested. Bit unsure about the status on flaps behaviours though, but that something is fishy is known and hopefully there will be a way to fix it before too long. :)

 

 

Definitely a way to fix it right now, but I'd love to see ED update it universally... Again it's that question of whether community-supplied updates are really ok if not everyone is guaranteed to have them.

Edited April 6, 2010 by aaron886

[Wilde]

Well this is not Street Fighter.

 

I didn't say it was. I was merely stating, that there are certain things of reality that are impossible to simulate in a game. Things like cost, training, maintenance and so on are not for free in the real world. But they are ingame. Furthermore the Flanker was not designed to operate versus Eagles in a vacuum with nothing else to consider. It is only a piece in a large war machinery. And now there are you telling me I should get the facts and provide them to ED. Hm. I think you have no clue what I was talking about. It's the difference between "fact sheet realism" and reality.

[Exorcet]

And of course there are a number of features the game lacks versus the real Russian birds. That's especially for BVR combat. Has been mentioned in this thread a couple of times.

 

Good point.

 

Another thing is realistic environment. In a real war you couldn't just fly over unprotected hostile ground scanning for prey all the time. Yet in this game that's normal especially in MP.

 

I was kind of surprised by the mission set up when I first went online, but I guess it makes sense for an open room with people coming and going. Nothing I can do until I make missions for myself and try to get people to join, or until other people get around to making more realistic missions. I'd prefer to have more realism as well.

[EtherealN]

Definitely a way to fix it right now, but I'd love to see ED update it universally... Again it's that question of whether community-supplied updates are really ok if not everyone is guaranteed to have them.

 

What I meant is: the problem is known, an experimental fix has already been made at ED, and this will be undergoing testing until a patch can hopefully be released to solve this and other things. ;)

 

See this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52006

 

(In case you didn't know, "Yo-Yo" is the physics guy at Eagle Dynamics.)

[RedTiger]

This Su-27 vs. F-15 stuff has me wonder, in multiplayer do you see fewer people using ETs?

 

I tended to see R-27T use as a product of the fact that they had capabilities prior to FC 2.0 that they should not. Other than that, frankly, I always saw them as a waste of two good pylons. That should be even more apparent in FC 2.0. You're sacrificing carrying 2 more BVR missiles or 2 more agile WVR missiles for a missile that still needs a "tone" for it to be effective.

 

Yes, it is fast, but is it that much more effective than the R-73? The R-73 was actually designed for use in that regimen. Better than another R-27ER? Now you have six missiles, three if you launch two at a time. What exactly makes a T so much more desirable? Am I missing something specific to multiplayer?

[EtherealN]

The thing with the T's is that they have better range than normal "dogfight missiles", and combined with IRST for detection you can make a "silent attack" - unless the opponent acquires you or the missile visually they won't know they're being attacked until they explode. (Not strictly true anymore IRL ofc, since there are missile detection kits that can identify a missile even if it is a passive one through it's plume and alert the pilot, but that kit isn't in FC.)

 

The problem in FC1.12 was that maddog capability where you could launch them in the general direction of the enemy completely without lock and they'd lock on their own later. But even without that "capability" their stealth attack is still nice - but obviously it requires different tactics than those you would use for a regular SARH/ARH BVR attack.

[RedTiger]

The thing with the T's is that they have better range than normal "dogfight missiles", and combined with IRST for detection you can make a "silent attack" - unless the opponent acquires you or the missile visually they won't know they're being attacked until they explode. (Not strictly true anymore IRL ofc, since there are missile detection kits that can identify a missile even if it is a passive one through it's plume and alert the pilot, but that kit isn't in FC.)

 

The problem in FC1.12 was that maddog capability where you could launch them in the general direction of the enemy completely without lock and they'd lock on their own later. But even without that "capability" their stealth attack is still nice - but obviously it requires different tactics than those you would use for a regular SARH/ARH BVR attack.

 

Better range? The seeker in FC 2.0 is supposed to true to life -- the same seeker found on the R-73. So better energy? Yes, but you're not any farther away. The missile still has to be under the same conditions to "see" the heat source.

 

Does better energy > better agility in FC? In the case of that stealth attack, yes, certainly, but is there that big of a difference? Well inside RMAX vs. just at RMAX vs. a non-maneuvering target that must be completely taken by surprise to have a bandit that close to even launch.

 

We know what the T versions are used for and I'm betting that there aren't too many "kill the B-1s flying NOE before they level your base" missions on hyperlobby (which would be cool and somewhat historically accurate, btw :) )

Edited April 6, 2010 by RedTiger

[RvEFuSiOn]

@aaron886

I'm sorry but i don't see his point.... Fact is if the flanker wasn't built to be an air superiority fighter, then why would china have the biggest fleet?

Fact is that they are both tremendous aircraft...

and another fact is that F-15's have always met aircraft in the sky that were at least 1-2 generations behind it and not to mention poorly trained pilots, hence you have such a high K/D ratio on the F-15.

Now that doesn't take away from its capabilities as an aircraft, but you can't in the same stroke say one is better than the other. As it stands in FC2, the Eagle completely outclasses the Flankers.

I fly the Eagle its great and I'm giving and unbiased opinion, but in the interest of fairness and allowing people on both sides to enjoy the game, our =RvE= server will allow the r77 adder on the su27 for the flanker drivers.

Yes i know the su27sk carries it, but since the cockpit is the same and its just an avionics upgrade we are allowing it.

Again whole point of us all to be a part of this community is to enjoy the time we spend here, and if some of our brethren who fly other aircraft are not enjoying it, we should maybe cater to their needs, so that their experience is better.

 

 

Edit: one thing that would save a lot of this controversy is if ED just decides to add china to the game with access to the su27sk. Problem solved.

 

Peace!

Edited April 6, 2010 by =RvE=FuSiOn

[topol-m]

Edit: one thing that would save a lot of this controversy is if ED just decides to add china to the game with access to the su27sk. Problem solved.

 

Peace!

 

That`s an interesting suggestion. Is this possible to do with a patch and can the Su-27SM be modelled with the same level of realism we see in the other FC 2.0 fighters?

[EtherealN]

RedTiger,

I just ran a test in FC2 where I carried R-27ETs and R-73's. Started in the valleys with an Eagle above and ahead at 10k meters. Using IRST to scan and lock I acquired the eagle and obtained Launch Authorization for the ET at ~8 nautical miles (geographical, not straight-line), lookup shot, which killed the target.

 

Basically, the difference between them is in being able to kill an Eagle that's at 13k meters without leaving shelter from search radars, and having to expose yourself to radars to do it. Admittedly, this will not be quite as practical in a fight where both are aloft, but the point here is that the Eagle was killed by something his radars, his friendly air defence radars, and his AWACS never saw. Even if that isn't good at all times, it's not something to scoff at. Reverse the roles and the Eagle would have no way to engage the Flanker without either exposing himself (to get in for an AIM-9 shot), or alerting the prey to his precense through using his radar.

 

So basically

if the R-27ET and R-73 have the same seeker

and

if FC2 models them relatively right

then

the seeker is not the limiter to range for the R-73. It's energy is.

 

Ran the test again, this time with both at the same altitude, and got LA for the R-27ET with a killing shot from 10nm. (Missile didn't have to climb.) R-73 gave me 3.5nm. Methodology for the first R-73 shot - the one from below - was flawed since I fired it at the wreck hit by the ET. Not that that matters all that much since the R-73 cannot physically do the first shot at all - the first test was basically using the Flanker as an IR-based SAM system. :P

 

But for a target moving away at ~450 knots and me being roughly mach 1, we can put numbers like this:

Launcher at ~4000 meters, target at ~10000 meters: R-27ET at 8nm. R-73 is N/A.

Launcher at ~10000 meters, target same: R-27ET at 10nm. R-73 at 3.5nm.

 

With head-on the seeker becomes the limitation. I managed to find the F-15 with IRST at ~7nm (though my handling of that thing sucks, especially since I had to use keyboard for it), and it took a few more seconds of closure to get LA (it was showing in the HUD as within launch parameters already, with the top marker as high as ~20nm, but without LA). So for head on at altitude, yeah, the ET isn't really much better than the 73. But in this case you'll have already been spotted on radar and might as well respond with your SARH and keep the ET for a case where you might end up behind an Eagle but too far away for a shot with a 73. Or simply plan your flight in such a way as to use the surprise capability of an ET or two as your way to tell the Eagles that you are there.

Edited April 7, 2010 by EtherealN