SgtPappy

This is a good point. I'm probably going to end up carrying 2x AIM-7E and 4xAIM-9J/P to save on some weight. Even at ~60% fuel and these weapons, the F-4E should be able to beat the F-5 and MiG-21bis in a 2 circle at all but the highest altitudes per RL data. I'm willing to be there may be a madman out there who will carry 4 Sparrows and nothing else for a sleek and still very deadly F-4. We have yet to see if HB's wear system will affect missiles, though if it's an option, I doubt MP servers will use it since it will only affect the F-4.

HB said that the components that experience wear will be an option in-game.

Incredible and absolutely epic trailer. Thank you for your hard work, HB! Absolutely cannot wait for this release.

The real life data suggests that the MiG-21bis and slatted F-4E have more or less the same max instantaneous turn rate with the F-4E having a much better max sustained turn rate. See the data compiled in this post on the extensive thread here below. Note that neither the MiG or F-4E come remotely close to the F-16A in either 1 or 2 circle performance: https://web.archive.org/web/20221007030544/http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_Block_15_Falcon_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf

All the plots are at 1000 m altitude. Each column of black graphs represents the aircraft on the top of the column (F-4E slats, F-5E, MiG-21bis and MiG-23ML respectively). Each row of red graphs also represent the planes in aforementioned order. I can see how the latter isn't actually labeled but if you look closely, you'll see how - for example, in the 3rd row - the red graphs match the final 3rd column MiG-21 graph. The black graphs in the 3rd row are therefore comparing the F-4 and F-5 to the MiG-21 turn rates.

I mean it it's been pretty civil I would think. In that case, isn't a forum full of nerds obsessed with aircraft going to have constant debates around aircraft matchups? I suppose the comparison talk should be kept to the proper Phantom vs XXX thread though. I'm not trying to be crass here but I feel like complaining about this is like watching a football game and being annoyed at all the fans of the other team for existing. Then again this is an online forum so maybe people complaining is something I should get used to

Thanks for clarifying. I must have been looking at just fuel weight or something, I'll double check. I can't believe I haven't seen this test data before. For those interested, here's the link https://dcs.silver.ru/. This is what you are referring to, right?

Thanks for making this wonderful summary. I have a couple of questions though. You mentioned that the MiG-21 Russian manuals usually use 40% fuel load. I used the same manual for my MiG-21 comparison and I see that the sustained turn diagrams at least list the MiG weight as 7500 kg with 2x R-3S which, in the game anyway, equates to about 55% fuel and 2x R-3S. But perhaps I'm missing something. I would be glad to be wrong. I also noticed that completely clean and with fuel set to 50% on the F-5E and MiG-21bis (infinite fuel in order to test STR), my buddy and I found that the MiG-21bis had a slight edge which seems inconsistent with the real data, as you have mentioned. What I wonder though is if you know whether the F-5 is underperforming or the MiG is overperforming. I haven't managed to find time to do the tests yet. Interestingly, if the MiG has any pylons, the F-5 will beat it pretty consistently.

Indeed he does call enemies friendlies if he's looking at the radar but I'm happy with his WVR call outs. I too hope this will be corrected. I believe he never makes a mistake when calling out bandits that he sees.

I saw this yesterday as well and it somehow went away after I checked the controls menu. I don't think that was the fix but it did disappear while I was flying.

What an awesome mission set! I found myself playing this for hours and couldn't wait to do it again the next day. Other than the hospital landing problem and the lack of buildings bug in the warehouse area, I also found that the most exciting mission (the car chase) doesn't seem to move past the portion when you land near the vehicle. I wonder if I've done something wrong, but I tried taking off and landing in various positions and distances and nothing happens. Despite that, it's all still fun. Thank you @Presidium for all your hard work!

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!