SgtPappy

Clouds do not currently block IR missiles or any sensor in-game.

Maybe I have a dumb question, but would a fan mod actually be a problem if an official dev wanted to make a module? I would think since its just an unofficial thing (anyone can technically make anything), as long as its not official, then an 3rd party dev or ED aren't obligated to bat an eye unless the mod is actually official dev quality which hasn't been a concern.

Right, my bad I forgot you are the loadout guy! But no I don't think you can sadly.

The USAF F-4E's only used either chaff pods or the more compact, self-protection ALE-40 system (~1974) that bolted onto the back of the inboard pylons. Similar in concept to the F-14's 90's pylons with the chaff in the rails but not quite the same.

Judging on how much attention to detail they're putting into the radar modeling, I hope so! Can't wait for the F-4 and your next video!

Very interesting stuff. Theoretically, if the APQ-120 could track the target even looking down (say in a situation where SNR still allows the tracking loops to work), you could still shoot down as long as the target doppler is different from the ground return right? I have heard that any shot below the horizon doesn't work but since the WSO/RIO can play with gain, I don't think thats necessarily true.

I meant to specify that, like Timex3, I had everything installed in the same way. That said, I must apologize. I looked through your previous answer and for me, the historical filter did the trick as it doesn't seem to work for mods. Sorry about that and thanks! Timex3, just to clarify, did you turn OFF the filter? It should look like this at the bottom of the mission editor: NOT like this:

I am also having the same issue. As with the A-4, the F-4 shows up as an active mod in the game but cannot be found in the mission editor despite checking the time filter (I tried 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1990 just for kicks).

Thank you for this great write-up! I tend to have bits and pieces of information on things, like the AIM-7, but sometimes I simply don't manage to put two and two together! But let me see if I understand this properly... Do you think that maybe at least some of the historical AIM-7 misses are due to the aspect switch supplying the AIM-7 with one bandwidth of frequencies but then the target changes aspect enough such that its return is out of the expected bandwidth and the AIM-7 goes ballistic? I then wonder if the aspect switch is used only before launch and that the changing spectrum of the return on a maneuvering target is transmitted into the AIM-7's tail receiver while in flight. This makes sense to me since the Sparrow (not sure about the M, MH and P) does not have range gating capability and therefore something getting between the transmitter (host/launch aircraft) and the target matching the frequency spectrum the AIM-7 is expecting could force the AIM-7 to follow that interfering object. I hope one day this will be modeled in DCS but for now, getting the F-4 in my hands will do

On top of all this, it's entirely possible to replace Jester's unwanted lines with complete silence or even your own voice if you felt like it. Perhaps this isn't exactly by design, but I would hazard to guess that those who really don't like Jester have sunk enough time into DCS to know that their various mods and liveries are implemented the same way as replacing said voice lines.

Incredible as always. These videos always make my day. Having just watched video 4 about the radar basics, I see that you mention the aspect knob helps tune the Sparrow to search for a specific part of the Doppler spectrum of the target return upon launch. Would you be able to elaborate on this? I was under the impression that this would require frequency filter bins or Fourier transforms of some sort which I thought were only possible when the radar emits with pulse-to-pulse coherence which the APQ-120 does not (i.e. the failure of CORDS to be implemented).

To add to this, I do like the idea of variants of jets that are very very similar to the versions that fought during their most famous conflicts, but are a bit more modern such that they can fit into later scenarios too. I think it's a prudent business model to have that versatility so we can, for example, choose the F-4E which is almost identical to the final F-4E's in Vietnam that saw combat with the USAF. At the same time, they work well as the Israeli 1973 F-4's while having the option for both AIM-7E, AIM-7F (maybe?) and the Pave Spike to use in late 70's early 80's servers such that they won't get absolutely clobbered by the 80's assets and plane set. Like some others, I personally prefer the ones that fit Vietnam and the Middle East wars exactly, but I can understand and am fond of the idea of making the modules more playable in different environments because it helps more people get into the hobby. As an MP-enthusiast, this is paramount for my own enjoyment.

I guess just like anything, we assign what constitutes fame and significance. The F-4 as we know served in many air forces - Navy and air force versions alike - and they made aces, shot down plenty of enemy planes and saw a lot of air to ground combat too. If we define historical significance for a fighter aircraft as seeing combat and destroying enemy equipment then there's your answer. By contrast, something like the P-38K which was only ever experimental might not be considered as historically important as it didn't do anything. That said, more or less historical significance doesn't invalidate some planes compared to others but it should by now be easy to see why the more historical version would be more popular. And there's no wrong or right about that, it's just preference.

Tell me about it. When I was playing strike fighters 2 some 9 years ago, I only dreamed of DCS having F-86's and F-4's and yet here we are - and they're so realistic. We're customers, yes but we're also spoiled!

Since I played a pivotal role in the expansion of your wallet, I'll get a cut right (even if they're imaginary Aussie bucks )? I and many others want the more historical versions but we can't speak for everyone. There is also a large enough audience that wants the more modern versions of a given design and that point of view is just as valid as ours. If this was a business decision by HB and ED to make the more modern versions for better sales, then it makes sense. If we got the strobes, there would be others complaining about having a less modern RWR displays too. It's not up to us to gate-keep anyone, regardless of what conflicting feature we or they want. The more modern versions are not any less realistic just because they aren't as historically relevant.. and this is coming from someone aching for the old school strobe RWR, ealier MiGs and period-accurate weapons. We can say DCS is meant to be as realistic as possible, but there are unrealistic things too like icons, map symbols, special module settings and such that are meant to make the game more accessible and this is a good thing for the survival of our hobby.

Agreed. At the end of the day, it's night I think alphanumeric was a good choice as it will be easier for people who like modern jets to transition to the F-4. I believe my buddy, who isn't a total masochist like me, would vastly prefer the ALR-46 and that's a fine trade-off for me if it means I've got more friends to fly the F-4 with.

Wait... this whole time you didn't actually dislike the strobes, but instead you have a bet riding on it?? It's already confirmed that it will be the alphanumeric ALR-46. No strobe is currently planned (because I bring you this info, I believe I am entitled to at least 25 of your $50 winnings):

As a musician, I was really looking forward to the strobe display and PRF audio. But I understand HB probably has a reason to use the alpha-numeric ALR-46 display, as confirmed last week.

I agree actually. It is definitely true that the jet loses flexibility from being only land-borne, but IMO it also gains some. Depending on the preferred doctrine, that may or may not make up for the loss of being able to launch from a carrier which can be basically anywhere in the world. I know we've had our differences but I'd be sad if there was no F-4J as well, but at least with HB, I believe there's more hope than there might be with other devs (not to say other devs aren't good but rather HB tends to be more reliable). 2019-2023 is a tough period for obvious reasons. All that said, I don't think this misses the mark. I'd eat my sock if a poll didn't show at least 50% of people voting to get the F-4E over waiting for a USN one

Thanks for the input! @DOL, how about Gifu? Do you think they do operations often enough on a Sunday for it to be worth passing by there before going to Hamamatsu? F-2, I'll take pics for you and post them in the forums when I return

Has anyone visited either Gifu airbase or the JASDF air park in Hamamatsu? I'm leaning towards visiting Hamamatsu since it's quite a huge museum but of course, Gifu is an active air base so it could be nice to visit there in the morning to watch some jets sortie and then proceed to Hamamatsu. I'd like to ask any plane spotters to let me know - if I only have one Sunday day to visit these areas, would the above make sense? Any tips on things I should visit? Also is the Komatsu air show particularly special compared to US or the big London, Canada air show such that I shouldn't miss it? It would be Oct 7, the Saturday before we aim to arrive in Hamamatsu. Thanks!

Aww darn. But thanks for the clarification. Doesn't change any excitement I still have

Excellent news (at least for me lol)! AFAIK, the -36 is a strobe only display, as it ever was fitted to the F-4. But someone correct me if there was an alphanumeric version.

I don't think the AIM-7M was ever used on the F-4E, even though it may have been an approved loadout. They did however carry AIM-7F's and AIM-9L's at some point which would still be pretty deadly. I can see the later F-4E with these weapons, TISEO and DMAS be a little more threatening on the 80's servers.

I remember having to get used to the F-14's 3 piece windshield and having lots of trouble seeing the enemy in BFM. That said, I thought the rearward visibility in the F-4 would be even worse than in the video.. the F-5 and MiG-21 are not great in those departments but it looks like the F-4 WSO has a modest ability to see behind! I actually like some elements of the F-4's post TO 556 mod ergonomics than modern planes. The early F-16 and F-14 have a very inconveniently-placed radar display but the F-4's repeater is right in your face.