SgtPappy

Yes, among other differences like clipped wings (which allowed the servos to adjust the wings to higher AoAs, allowing the missile to pull more instantaneous G), fusing and missile flight orientation (no longer flew with one set of wings level and the other straight vertical, but rather looked like an "X" in flight). All were meant to give it better A2A capability.

I learned so much about the F-4 and US doctrine during the Vietnam war from "Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam, 1965-1972" by Marshall L. Michel III. I still refer to material here when I have questions. "Israeli F-4 Phantom II Aces" by Shlomo Aloni also gives a great perspective on the Israeli experience with the F-4 from SAM avoidance to dogfights and gun kills in the most intense aerial fighting that Phantom crews have ever seen.

Something tells me that the general MP server audience will enable the most modern weapons and won't do historical accuracy which is fine. Personally the more historically-inspired servers will be my main place to play.

Same here. The servers that historically reflect wars like Vietnam and the Middle East wars of the 60s and 70s would have weapon restrictions, but the Phantom (or at least some version of it) will be right at home in more modern environments using all-aspect heaters, countermeasures and PGM's. There's so much potential for this module.

I was thinking the same thing, but maybe it's like, a fever dream lol. All I've been having are similar dreams the past two days!

Yessss this is one of the things I'm really looking forward to! It will be a unique experience that until now has only been partially simulated mainly with the F-5 on the blue side. Combat will be so viceral in a different way than 80s or modern servers - the lack of 1 circle face-shooting fights and lots more dogfighting and guns kills... I've ben waiting for this for years!

Agreed 100%. If there's anything I've learned, it is indeed to pay less attention to the "this vs that" question. It's brought me a lot more sanity. But it had to be learned since this isn't a lot of our professions, so generally we look to folks like you. That doesn't mean that I can't also appreciate the idea that a computer game/simulation should be built by the numbers. But I also empathize with views which say these numbers are not grand-scheme important to most people which is also fine. My main point was really - "let's get along guys when the next FM comes out" because you must admit, it was getting tense. But I can't control what anyone decides to do/doesn't want to do and I have the genuine belief that pretty much all of us are decent people who can just get emotional over a shared passion. I don't want this to be some kind of blame game, but rather an attempt at a reminder that in a sense, we're in this together.

Might be better to supply a tacview or short video of one.

I don't think anyone reasonable thinks this is a bad thing but people prefer different things from this sim/game. I think the current differences appear reasonable except maaaaybe the compressor stalls which Victory205 has mentioned are being worked on since he never had compressor stalls flying through others' jetwash. In the game, you may notice it happens all the time at least for me even if I set the power levers and never touch them. I've flown straight and level as a jet passed close above me and had my engines pop, but again - it's a WIP. Variability could be immersive and of course lack of perfection is reasonable (what even IS perfection?), but there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might not like that. There is an argument that "perfectly fresh jets performing up to fantastic standards are rare. Each plane performs differently and therefore there's no need to reach that accuracy". However if every jet in a video game (which this is) performs exactly the same, then one of premises of the argument is flawed because now they all perform exactly the same. There is no variability in video games of this complexity yet so why not have them perform to the most recognizable, verified standard? These are the manuals and the loads of data we have, which admittedly, are imperfect as well. Still, it's the best we got. We can swing in the other direction entirely and say none of that matters, what matters is the SME's feel only but you can quickly see why that is also flawed. So the best approach is likely something in between: get as close to the non-classified data as possible and add tweaks here or there in places where the data can't replicate what is needed. There have been a lot of pissing contests and sore butts in the past in this very thread and it disappoints me greatly because we're all sort of just trying to get the most out of the game yet for some reason, we can't agree to disagree with what each of us individually believes is the goal. It isn't up to any of us what the other thinks should be important. Really just wanted to put that out there because I'm fairly sick of the conflict which I feel will pop up the next time the F-14 FM is updated.

I'm going to name him whatever I want, as long as I can keep him and take care of him and walk him daily! No need for scouring any dark web for those, there everywhere and can be found from the first couple of results in a quick Google search! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.f4phantom.com/docs/F4Manual-1979-T-O-1F-4E-1-Flight-Manual-USAF-Series-F-4E-Aircraft.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwixnOn7lND1AhUqLTQIHZHpACoQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw39Iz98V8djiBNaKJ4bq6Nq No need to stir the rivalry here. Let's keep it civil and unite for our love of the Phantom rather than starting any beef over some old squabble shall we?

Can it be both...?

Looks like the previous thread was deleted. I reposted the plots below. STR in deg/s plots have been removed since they are exact copies of the -1 manual. In addition, they did not match the deg/s calculated from the acceleration charts which I have assumed are more accurate since acceleration is measured directly unlike deg/s turn rates. Let me know what you guys think. Again not sure if this is a bug or just something that has slipped through multiple updates but it was just an observation.

If I had to guess, another limitation is that if you wanted the biggest antenna size for the finest and most aerodynamic nose cone, then that means you would be limited theoretically to how much you could move that big antenna around right? I would imagine the trade-off is better performance and resolution for a given power output vs being able to notch and guide a missile at the same time. The latter capability was limited in use because as GG said, there's no need to lone-wolf in real life. Doctrine in general meant working as a team.

Not sure if this is really a "bug" in the traditional sense, or just something that has not been updated in a while. Please see the following thread which details some of the quick and dirty tests some of us did which appear to show the F-15's STR delta vs the -1 plots. Clean, it seems the delta is +0.2 G in some parts of the envelope - not sure if that's small or big based on ED's ability to model. With a 4x4 sparrow/sidewinder loadout, the delta is much more noticeable, up to 2 deg/s in some areas. I think both loadouts exhibit a big spike ~ Mach 0.9 at all tested altitudes.

Sorry, we Canadians often mix up units (Freedom Units aren't really our forté but somehow, we're stuck with them in the aviation industry )

I know a lot of people tell Jester to STFU but I personally love that he's a chatter box! Except maybe that one period of time when you missed the basket during refueling and he actually was on a loop

In one of the other threads, @IronMikementioned that they are wanting to create a better Jester/AI experience by having him sort targets more intelligently and having the pilot confirm the hook or lock preferences rather than micro-managing exactly what Jester's doing (maybe he can confirm if I understand correctly). I think most of us have been really wanting a "hook specific target" and then "next launch", but I'm willing to bet that there's something even more awesome (/sinister?) in the works and I'm excited (/scared for the eventual Jester AI takeover)!

Really new to the AI RIO extension and am loving it so far! It's saved lots of time, has added tons of immersion to the F-14 experience and has made Jester quite deadly before the merge. However, I am having trouble with something that maybe someone could provide some experience with. There is currently no command to have Jester target a specific contact with AI RIO from RWS (only from TWS). My favourite 80's servers don't use the AIM-54 so the command to STT a specific TWS target number is not available (i.e. in TWS, targets are only assigned attack numbers by the AWG-9 if there are AIM-54's carried). I have been using the Jester wheel but in the middle of combat, it's tough to navigate through the a bunch of Jester wheel layers (BVR radar > STT target > choose specific target > etc.). Is there a way to setup a custom profile that will take me to straight to the "choose specific target" wheel?

Maybe the tutorial videos are out of date, but they all show a line akin to a CCIP line show up on the HUD. I'm not sure why, I'm not sure how to use it but I noted the disparity and was not sure if the lack of this line is an indication of me doing something wrong on my end or if it's all part of the same glitch with the TALD in general (flies through ground, does not attract SAMs, no wings). This is part of what I am trying to get to the bottom of (i.e. user error on top of bug or just bug?).

I was asking if there was an update (since I had no reply in the other thread), which is different than knowing that it has been reported.

Small bump - any news on this? When I launch TALDs, the enemy SAMs do not target them. I get no launch line (like the CCIP line) on my HUD either.

Just curious - I have this same issue but on top of that, the SAMs do not attack my TALDs. I do not get the CCIP line down my HUD when I arm my TALDs so they appear to do nothing even when I'm locked or launched on by, say, an SA-3. Is this all part of the same glitch or am I doing something wrong?

Feelings are the same on my side - I often wonder what would happen had Iran remained under the power of the Shah. There would probably be more, updated F-14's, maybe better engines would have been equipped sooner, F-16's flying along side the Tomcats... but would it have been better or worse overall for the people of Iran? Who knows!

The issue is we don't have publicly-available information on the Hornet's performance. We have anecdotes that state it might not perform this well but we can't be sure.

Looks like my jet is in top gun movie mode then because I get most of my stalls flying through wash in-game! I've been setting my missions to have 300 KIAS tankers.. looks like I need to slow them down.