A comparison of F-15s

[+streakeagle 871]

Take a look and you be the judge:

 

Real F-15 in flight:

 

Stock WOE F-15A:

 

Mirage Factory F-15A mod:

 

LOMAC F-15C:

 

All of them have their flaws, but my eyes prefer the stock WOE F-15 to any other combat flight sim I have ever flown.

[+Dave 2,322]

Eyes must be off as the MF F-15 has it down to a T.

[+streakeagle 871]

Whose eyes are off? Look at the canopy very closely in each pic. None of them are 100%correct, but the F-15 mod has always had and continues to have a badly distorted canopy: way too wide at the front and way too narrow at the rear, which is very obvious from almost any angle. It isn't even close. The WOE canopy is just a tad too wide at the rear, but you can barely tell even from a direct overhead view such as this, and by far looks much closer to actual photos than even the LOMAC F-15. LOMAC didn't use enough polygons: the rear part of the canopy has distinct corners and overall is a tad too narrow by about the same amount WOE is a tad too wide in the rear section.

 

Also note the blending of the engine nacelles into the fuselage, which is another area that the stock WOE F-15 beats out the other two. The MF F-15 nacelle blending comes to a sharper point. The LOMAC blend is too blunt. The stock WOE is hardly different from the photo.

 

To each his own. But I don't see any reason to replace the stock F-15 unless you want the nozzles without the turkey feathers.

[+streakeagle 871]

Here is a comparison I did between WOE and LOMAC during WOE beta testing. Note how the extra width of the WOE cockpit causes a distortion toward the rear of the canopy), in this case, the LOMAC image is better overall... but only by a very small margin. Also note that neither model captures the shape of the nose perfectly, and that once again, LOMAC does a better job:

 

 

Here is an equivalent screenshot from WOE in the current release. Note that the lighting changed a bit, the shadow model is now present, and the seat is different (apparently tryinig to reflect the F-15A's original Escapac seat):

 

Edited July 13, 2006 by streakeagle

[Sky Captain 0]

I have to say that the LOMAC pic (bottom one, right?) looks almost lifelike.

 

The dip of the nose on the WOE version seems to be closer to the real thing, but the part of the leading edge that merges with the intake is a bit big. Yes, I'm nitpicky and go for the tiniest details.

 

Edit: And the bump towards the rear is more pronounced on the WoE Eagle.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Sky Captain

[+Crusader 2,101]

MF 15 has better shaped wing tips, they are too pointy on the WOE 15

[TheTracer 0]

The biggest mistake on the WOE F-15 is the incorrect ejection seat, looking like the seat of a F-4 Phantom.

 

 

TheTracer

[Sky Captain 0]

So basically we're just tearing apart TK's work.

[BUFF 8]

The biggest mistake on the WOE F-15 is the incorrect ejection seat, looking like the seat of a F-4 Phantom.

I agree that it's the most noticeable to me too - I haven't checked but it wouldn't surprise me if it is a re-used model, remember that TK is on a small budget.

& all 3 models have flaws but I suppose unless you can get production blueprints, your sim allows a gazillion pixels & you have the budget for the model that's probably always going to be the case.

[+streakeagle 871]

It would be great if 3d models were like text files: easily cut-n-paste to merge the best features of each one.

 

At a glance, the LOMAC model looks really good... it is amazing how much good lighting and textures do to improve the basic 3d model. What my screenshots from LOMAC don't show is how shiny the F-15 looks in that sim. I carefully placed the aircraft and camera to avoid the blinding flash that makes the F-15 look like it has a mirrored silver finish! But the LOMAC model always has sharp corners where there should be blending. Beyond the engine nacelles, look at the top view around the speed brake. I have seen some early F-15A model kits that had similar errors... I wonder if they based their model off of a kit rather than photos of the the real thing?

 

The seat model is independent of the 3d model, so it can be easily replaced. But problems like the sharp wingtips, mishaped nose, distorted canopies, etc. can only be fixed by those with the source files for the base 3d model. Overall, I still like the stock model the best of these 3... general proportions just look/feel right over most viewing angles and the texturing is pretty good for a stock skin. The original pre-flying-toaster/MF F-15 was better than nothing, but its nose was downright repulsive to me. If the MF F-15 ever got the canopy lines right, it would probably be my #1 choice.

Edited July 13, 2006 by streakeagle

[Aintry 0]

Take a look and you be the judge:

 

Real F-15 in flight:

 

Stock WOE F-15A:

 

Mirage Factory F-15A mod:

 

LOMAC F-15C:

 

All of them have their flaws, but my eyes prefer the stock WOE F-15 to any other combat flight sim I have ever flown.

 

 

Streakeagle--

 

I've been looking at your photograph of an F-15 in flight and, I've gotta tell ya, it's not what I would call the best picture to use as the basis for a detail comparison. Not only is the picture blurry, but the shot angle and the lighting conditions differ from those of the 3d model shots and, in the case of lighting, the differences are very significant. I don't know how I'm supposed to determine the shape of an F-15 canopy when I can't see all the way around it.

 

Don't you think a schematic drawing of an F-15 would have been a more effective starting point for a discussion of modeling details?

 

Tristan

Edited July 14, 2006 by Tristan

[+streakeagle 871]

Drawings are all well and good... but like 3d models, they are usually done by artists and no two drawings are ever the same. Besides, drawings are flat without any distortions, whereas any screenshots are going to have distortion due to perspective and/or field of view. But just for comparison purposes, it wouldn't hurt to throw a few 3-view drawings on here. The problem is that you have to use a narrow field of view, get somewhat far away (making for low resolution), and line up the camera exactly to get a useful screenshot for good comparison.

 

Finding perfect photos and having the game engine lighting match reality isn't going to happen (especially with the rather poor lighting in SF/WOV/WOE), but I prefer photos to drawings any day since photos are close to what my eye actually sees, which is exactly what 3d engines in games are trying to reproduce. If you can ignore the lighting and textures and mentally compensate for the angle differences in the photo, quite a few things can be learned about flaws in the 3d model from the comparisons. My mistake in the overhead shots was having made the screenshots first, then trying to comb the net for an equivalent photo (which I had to rotate and zoom to get the orientation and size close to the other aircraft).

 

Things like the wing tips, canopy shape, and the way the various shapes are blended together on the back and at the wing roots, and the relatively straight edges of the intakes (which are beveled for some strange reason on the LOMAC model), . These images aren't meant to be measured directly to make the necessary corrections, but rather to identify the obvious errors in sizes and proportions leading to further research and better revisions in future 3d modeling attempts.

 

Here is a small 3-view that has a fairly accurate top view, the front is ok, but the side looks a bit off:

 

Yet another 3-view... again the side has more issues than the other views, but the canopy appears to be a two seater?

 

I had to go to a Russian website to get a decent hi-res drawing I could scale down into a jpg for here. My uncalibrated eye likes this drawing:

 

Now let us assume that this drawing is 100% correct (which is true enough on a relative scale when compared to any of the 3d model screenshots above). Check out how the canopy frame is close to parallel to the fuselage over most of its length. There is no super wide spot at the front canopy frame (MF F-15A), nor does it bulge a bit at the aft frame (WOE F-15A), and the LOMAC F-15 definitely did not use this Russian drawing as a reference for its canopy... but I could already see all of this was true from the original post ;)

Edited July 14, 2006 by streakeagle

[+Dave 2,322]

To each his own. But I don't see any reason to replace the stock F-15 unless you want the nozzles without the turkey feathers.

 

Which is more correct as there were only 4 w/ turkey features delievered to Europe then those were taken off.

 

I see the cockpit with issue. Have to ask bpao about it. That is not as obvious as putting turkey feathers on an A model when all that had them, {only 4} had then removed and the rest were delievered without. That is more of am immersion killer to me that the cockpit shape.

 

But as you stated none of the F-15's are truly correct.

 

So what was the point of this post?

 

And yes, your eyes are off......Streak

[+streakeagle 871]

Which is more correct as there were only 4 w/ turkey features delievered to Europe then those were taken off.

 

I see the cockpit with issue. Have to ask bpao about it. That is not as obvious as putting turkey feathers on an A model when all that had them, {only 4} had then removed and the rest were delievered without. That is more of am immersion killer to me that the cockpit shape.

 

But as you stated none of the F-15's are truly correct.

 

So what was the point of this post?

 

And yes, your eyes are off......Streak

 

The game goes to 1980 right? The turkey feathers were installed until about 1982-83 on all F-15As. Show me a dated pic that shows otherwise. Most of the pics in my books are dated and all pics before 83 have turkey feathers. All pics after don't have turkey feathers. Some of my pics are of F-15As in formation over Germany and strangely enough, given the number of F-15As delivered by 1982, more than four seemed to have served there with feathers. The F-15Cs were delivered without turkey feathers, which started around 1979-1980.

 

Holy crap! 2 of the 4 German Eagles with turkey feathers! I guess the photographer was just lucky to catch such a rare sight!

 

I think the same 4 planes are getting repainted and sent to Okinawa!

 

AFAIK, every single F-15A was delivered with tailfeathers and none of them had them removed prior to the stock game's 1980 date limit. So if you are trying to be historically correct and accurate, the F-15A without tail feathers is totally incorrect. The point of these posts is the same point as most of my posts on any forums: to discuss things I am interested in that kind of fall into the category of the forum. One of the things I am interested in is dispelling some myths that have been sprinkled in the forums that the stock F-15 model is completely crap compared to the latest addon revision. Another myth is that LockOn is the king when it comes to detail and accuracy for the F-15. It simply isn't so for the external 3d model. At least in SF/WOV/WOE you can look at the options (there are at least 3 different F-15As to choose from at this point), whereas in LOMAC all you can do is repaint whatever they give you.

 

Now it just so happens that my opinion goes against the "mod mafia" on the issue of which F-15A looks better. I can agree to disagree on which is better overall, but I can't agree that the MF F-15A is superior in all ways or with someone who tells me my eyes aren't seeing something that is as clear as the sun at high noon on a cloudless day.

Edited July 14, 2006 by streakeagle

[+streakeagle 871]

Notice that while the position of the blister relative to the wingtip may be different in all three of the above models, they all have a relatively square tip compared to photos. I think the wingtip being too angular on all of the models comes from drawings like the big one above... in most drawings (including the ones in my books), the rwr blister is right at the corner. If you look at photos, the curvature of the wingtip protrudes some past the blister. 3d modelers tend to use drawings (for obvious and correct reasons) and drawings tend to be wrong.

 

I guess the government needs to laser scan all aircraft into a variety of 3d model lods so sims can have the best possible models as pc's increase their ability to handle poly counts/vertexes. Maybe we should start a petition that taxpayers are entitled such 3d models of any product purchased by the government for no additional cost beyond the taxes we already pay :)

[+Dave 2,322]

Well my data was incorrect then about the turkey feathered F-15's. I was basing my info on an old book I had with the pages falling out. Fly whatever one you want it doesnt bother me at all.

 

Thanks for the mod mafia cheap shot though. I was just poking fun at you about your eyes being off.

[Aintry 0]

Thanks for the F-15 schematics, Streak; I find them much more convincing than the photograph. And thanks for the data about the turkey feathers.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Tristan

[+streakeagle 871]

Well my data was incorrect then about the turkey feathered F-15's. I was basing my info on an old book I had with the pages falling out. Fly whatever one you want it doesnt bother me at all.

 

Thanks for the mod mafia cheap shot though. I was just poking fun at you about your eyes being off.

 

Well my data is just from books too... whose to say the little words in my books are any more accurate than the little words in your books or anyone elses. I can't be absolutely certain of the years since I am mainly relying on the photo captions... but if you have very old books, as I do, the photos include lots of shots of the original F-15As since F-15Cs were relatively new. The internet and later books show them they way they have been for over 20 years now!

 

I was partially poking fun back... but partially being critical on the "mod mafia" stuff. I believe that other people do have a lot of valid complaints about the way they get treated when they ask a question or disagree with the old guard. I got jumped on big time when I pointed out problems with the original Paco F-15... especially the hyper roll rate in the FM. It didn't matter that what I said or how ludicrous the roll rate was... the modders and their fanboys are always right. I got jumped on again for liking the P-40 that was never released better than Wolf's. That P-40 never did become available... but it looked better and moving control surfaces. It seems stating an opinion... or in the case of verifiable 3d model accuracy, a fact is a crime if it hurts someone's pride.

[BOOM 0]

Here's what i have; sorry for that sloppy cutting out, i was short on time

First of all note that the canopy supports are slightly different in both models vs. the real one. Also note that every model has diferent little antennas (forget the official word for them ) and each one is a differen shape in a different place. Pay no attention ot the tail, the angle of the shots differed just enough to throw that off. I learned one thing makeing this though: there is a reason they call it 'low visibility gray,' it was really painfull to cut these out especially the LOMAC one!

 

If i get extra time ill do one of the drawings too.

[BOOM 0]

Ok, got myself some extra time and here is what i promised. I had some trouble matching the size and position because of the slightly different viewpoint but the flaws are pretty obvious:

Here you can see the difference in canopy shape. The main difference here is at the back of the canopy were it tappers off. The WOE one has a pointed end while the drawing depicts a flatter end.

This LOMAC version is probably the best at showing the shape of the air intakes. In both pictures they are slightly curved. Again on this one the caopy comes to a sharp point and the spacing of the canopy supports is different.

This one prabably has the best matching canopy: dull in the front and back. As with both SFP1 versions the intakes are as rounded as bricks.

 

You're free to make your own decisions about these and im open to 'constructive' criticism. have fun.

Edited July 15, 2006 by BOOM

[Aintry 0]

Nice presentation, Boom.

[+streakeagle 871]

The drawing you used is inaccurate to begin with (which I mentioned in my post)

 

I scanned in a drawing from a book that is much better:

 

WOE:

 

MF:

Edited July 15, 2006 by streakeagle

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

All three models are identical at the combat speeds and combat distances in game or real life. Bravo to all F-15 modders everywhere in every jet sim....even the "mfd" sims.

 

And Special thanks to all the modders of all the F-106s and Su-15s in every jet sim. This is such a neat creation TK started here, I still can't get over it.

[Jarink 1]

I found this pic which pretty clearly shows there is a slight taper to the intakes.

 

 

Another one (yes, I know it's an "E", but I don't think they changed the inlets design from the earlier models)

 

I'm sure most of you also realise that the tops of the intakes can tilt up and down.

 

Compare this with the previous side shots:

 

 

Frankly, while it's fun to nitpick like this, I don't feel any of the 3D models are superior to others enough to really matter. I don't have WOE, but I do like the F-15 (and other models) from the Mirage Factory.

[+streakeagle 871]

Both the WOE and MF F-15s do have a slight taper at the intakes (perhaps too slight? difficult to tell because there is no way to project the outline onto a flat picture via the game engine). Their general outlines are almost identical from the top, except for the wingtips and canopies. Whereas LOMAC appears to use less polygons and is by far the least accurate of all 3 from a top view. LOMAC's intake taper is excessive as easily depicted in the original pics at the top of this post.

 

Prior to this post, I don't recall any other post on any other forum that compared these models in any way. All of the posts I recall reached the unanimous conclusion that the stock WOE model should be immediately replaced by the the MF model. The whole point of this post was to compare and contrast the differences to allow people to make an informed decision rather than blindly following the crowd. If in the course of this discussion, the MF takes a look and decides to improve their model, that would be great! But given the number of projects they have and the time they alreday spent on the F-15, I don't expect it. Given that no further model revisions are going to become available, why shouldn't people be aware of the tradeoffs? It is my opinion that the photos and drawings suggest that the most accurate F-15A available for the timeframe of WOE is the stock model. The textures and decals are an entirely separate issue which can be resolved easily in comparsion to building and editing 3d models.