Kageseigi

I've looked in the main DCS F-4 directory and also the Saved Games DCS F-4 directory. I believe some modules have the file labeled "Macro_sequencies.lua" But I can't find anything for the F-4 so far. Thank you!

This happened to me my first time. I had to restart the mission. The first time, Jester asked what kind of alignment I wanted, and I ignored him. The prompt went away, and the alignment never completed. The second time, I made sure to answer, and I selected the fast alignment. It was finished within 3 minutes.

In that case, would it technically be possible for multiple Tomcats to use the same channel, then one Tomcat guide another's Sparrow onto the target? Or perhaps it would only be possible in CW/flood mode?

Yeah, I was hoping to disable the TrackIR Y input (because I don't get much use out of it... and can't get enough control with my seating arrangement to be useful), and just use the axis on my throttle to control the pilot's vertical movement (whether by using OpenTrack's Y input or DCS' "Absolute Vertical Shift Camera View" axis command). The purpose is mainly for my F-86 gunnery. Being able to raise my pilot's head enough to see over the nose helps a lot when I'm in a turn fight and trying to pull lead. I can walk my tracers to the target. Being able to use an axis to control that is very handy because I can raise/lower the view very gradually and to the exact amount needed in any given situation, but I can also let go of the axis and it will immediately return my pilot's head back to the normal position (the throttle's axis is self-centering). I originally was going to use a snap view, but I believe that disables my headtracking altogether, so it is also very limiting. Assigning the axis to "Absolute Vertical Shift Camera View" works perfectly... until DCS detects TrackIR. Then TrackIR overrides the "Absolute Vertical Shift Camera View" control even though TrackIR's Y-axis is disabled and the "Head Tracker : Up/Down" control is unassigned in DCS. If TrackIR would not override ALL the relevant axes by default if detected, or if another device could be assigned to DCS' "Head Tracker : Up/Down" control, or even if the "Absolute Vertical Shift Camera View" control could simply modify the specific headtracking input, then I believe everything would work perfectly. But yes, it all comes down to improving gunnery and situational awareness. Thank you for the suggestions. I'll check them out

Thanks, guys. Yes, I think that is the problem. I have a perfectly good axis on my throttle, and all of my buttons are already reserved. Once I get a STECS, it may be a different story, but for now, I can't assign "button" functions to my axis. I've even installed OpenTrack specifically to use my throttle axis as the head tracker's Y axis (and it does work by itself), but when I have both TrackIR and OpenTrack enabled (with the the proper axes enabled/disabled on each, DCS recognizes only Track IR. I'm a newbie with both programs, so I'm not sure if there's a way for both to be used together or not. Though when OpenTrack's output "freetrack 2.0 Enhanced" setting seem to suggest that it may be possible to use them both (at least for some games), but I don't know where to learn more about that. So I'm not sure where possible solutions would exist. Whether it be in OpenTrack or a program similar to it, or if the DCS input files could be modified to allow such a thing. Hopefully ED will give the option to override individual axes soon. Or at least provide some workaround.

Yes, I think ED having having control over such things is for the best so there can be consistency between the modules... but with the caveat that they make it a priority to maintain that consistency. The years between updates/changes is the only reason I'd consider that it might be better to allow other parties to make needed changes. In either case, I suppose it comes down to if/when anyone is willing to make the needed changes. And so I can make sure I stay more on the thread topic, I do hope ED makes it a priority to get the Phoenix on a new API soon. It feels like it is unique to other FOX-3's, so it needs special attention. She's an ol... a mature girl. She needs gentle lovin' and pamperin'.

For me, at least, the issue is less with the accuracy of how the missile flies, and more with how the missile tracks (or the lack thereof). As far as I'm aware, that's an ED issue, sadly. As was discussed earlier about third-parties, I still think that is a vital point for ED to focus on... how the different modules interact with each other. Like it or not, a big part of DCS is PVP combat. If one module's missile is realistically modeled, but another's is overperforming, that really hurts the player of the realistically modeled module. The same can be said for any PVP game. But in most, the goal is balance. In DCS, the goal is supposed to be accuracy. But not all modules are equally accurate, unfortunately. Where the flight models of planes are concerned, you can at least voice your concerns to the specific dev team. But for missile performance, it seems ED doesn't want to allow other parties to have the control they need in order to make the changes/fixes that are needed. At least, that's what I've gathered from reading the forums. I hope some changes are made soon in that regard. I'm not really sure of what flexibility ED allows 3rd party devs in general. The F-14 has special options to disable the burble because HB modeled its own. The Mig-21 has special options to have unrealistic tracking HUD elements, I believe. The F-86 has special options to disable automatic seat movement during takeoff/landing. Where is the limit for what a dev can allow the player to do or not to do that either ignores or overrides DCS' own systems, or even give themselves unrealistic advantages? For a single-player game, there's no real harm. But DCS is multiplayer also.

If this was the part you were referring to, it does confuse me a bit. Specifically, he mentions these three ranges... 30-40: Shoot to catch target off-guard 20-30: Don't shoot because they will maneuver 20-: Shoot He also said all a target had to do from 50 miles was turn 25 degrees, and that would defeat the missile. I don't understand that, though. Is it because 25 degrees would be enough to bleed off the missile's energy or because it would put the target into a position for a notch? Either way, he started off talking about the AWG-9 specifically being susceptible to notching, and the APG-71 would give the Phoenix a much better shot because the missile would know were to find the notching target once the supporting radar lost track. Then again, doesn't the Phoenix (at least the C model) go active whenever the supporting radar loses track? I don't know, I still wish I could find the math of the angles and notching requirements for cranking Tomcats and maneuvering targets. That is if a Tomcat launches at 30nm, and cranks left at 45 degrees, then the hot target turns 90 degrees (to its left) to notch the Tomcat's radar, what angle is the target going to be from the Phoenix' radar that goes active after losing support from the Tomcat itself, and how much more does it need to maneuver to reach 90 degrees from the Phoenix (or to leave the missile's search zone)? It seem like there should be a lot more to notching a supported Fox-3 than simply turning 90 degrees from the RWR threat. Especially from a missile that lofts extremely high.

One benefit that I really like about buying modules on Steam is that you can play them on both Steam and Standalone. I don't know if that's true for all modules, but it works for every module that I've purchased. I really, really wish you could do the reverse, and could purchase Standalone modules, then transfer them to Steam. I really hate the thought of being locked out of a module I bought if I decide (for a good reason or not) to use the different version of DCS. Though DCS is not the only game that suffers from this.

Is it possible to use Track IR, but override a single axis with another device? My throttle can control my pilot's vertical movement when DCS does not detect Track IR. But when it does, my throttle control stops working, even when I disable the Track IR Y-axis both in DCS controls menu and in the Track IR app. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything interfering with the pilot's vertical movement... there's nothing assigned to control it at all (other than my throttle). In the DCS control options menu, the "Head Tracker : UP/Down" input is blank. It seems as though DCS just overrides ALL of the pilot's movements with Track IR inputs even if specific axes are not assigned to use Track IR... like it just reads an input of zero. Surely there is a way to bypass that?

Thanks, guys! It turned out to be "Absolute Vertical Shift Camera View"

My Track IR doesn't handle Y-tracking (vertical movement) very well, but the controls menu seemingly won't let me assign a HOTAS axis to the Head-Tracker category. I would like to have some control over my vertical positioning in some situations (e.g. pulling heavy lead while still maintaining visual on the target below the nose), and my throttle has a self-centering axis, so it seems like it would be a great alternative. I even looked for the TrackIR input file so I could try transferring the commands to the HOTAS input file, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Is there any way to accomplish this? Thank you!

In light of recent events, the cynic in me says your problem in this particular case is because the MiG-23 is already dead

Indeed! Umm, if I hook myself up to Elon Musk's AI interface, does that mean I'll get to fly the A-6 also?

Didn't the IRST allow F-14's to detect and track F-22's at one time? Or is that myth/hush-hush?

Indeed. Does anyone know what those conditions are specifically? According to the manual: I guess that two of those conditions could be to have the AIM-7 selected and also have boresight mode selected. But I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the above line... It says "in addition to when launched in boresight mode," then continues to say that "the radar will also switch to flood mode when a target is lost, either before launch or after launch." Does that mean that it will switch to flood mode in "normal" mode when a target is lost? I understand it working if the target is lost after the missile is launched in normal mode, but what does the "before launch" mean? The time between the trigger press and the actual launch during normal mode? Or after the trigger press and before the launch during boresight mode (which doesn't actually have a target to lose?)? Or it will simply enter flood mode when you select AIM-7 and boresight mode (being "before launch")? And also, if the radar switches to flood mode after a target has been lost in normal mode, how long will the radar stay in flood mode? Haha, so many questions! And here is another. Outside of flood mode, is there any way to get the AWG-9 to send a continuous wave/guidance frequency (whether it be through an STT lock or some other method) without having to actually launch a missile? Basically, to keep a target defensive through unceasing RWR active missile alerts? I suppose it would be the opposite tactic of using TWS: instead of launching a silent "stealth" missile, create a loud "phantom" missile.

Very interesting! I'm curious. I've read that the F-15's radar can "flood" an area with a signal that causes RWR's to display active missile launches/guidance even without needing to fire a missile. Does the AWG-9's boresight/flood mode do the same thing? If so, are there any range limitations?

I think that is the main source of frustration for me. It doesn't matter if the Phoenix is five times faster and more maneuverable than any other missile, or has ten times the range... if its guidance system doesn't track, it almost becomes like a super long-range gun shot. I don't know how well a real Phoenix would be able to track more modern fighters dependably (or if there is actually anyone who does know), but I do hope ED hurries and gives it the attention and care it deserves. But I want to thank you guys at HB for doing your best to get the kinematics as close as can be! I hope ED does as much with the guidance system! But I'm sure everyone at HB is even more eager for that than us players!

Speaking of which, is there any way to STT a hooked target yourself from the front seat with that mod? I couldn't seem to find one. Without that ability, it just seems to make it even more frustrating... like someone waving a sugar-cookie flavored candle in your face, but not having any actual sugar cookies to eat! Alas, such a terrible, but effective method of torture! So please tell me there are actual sugar cookies in the mod!

Interesting, thank you, guys! A snap view seems like it could get me close to what I need, but I believe it locks the view in place, overriding Track IR. Is there a way to allow headtracking to still work with a snap view? I do like its simplicity, being able to toggle back and forth between two specific views with a button press, but the tracking is rather important. P.S. Oh, and I don't believe I stated the purpose for the question in the original post. It is to be able to change views when needed... a low view for normal flight operations, and a high view for dogfighting (as Squiffy spoke of). Since the seat already moves up and down in the Sabre, it seemed like the simplest method of achieving my goal.

I'm curious, it there a way to manually raise the pilot's seat (as it is in landing/takeoff mode) without dropping the gear? I believe there is the option to remove the raised position altogether, so maybe there is an option to leave it there or manually adjust it also? Thank you!

Different mission, different design, different time. You could also say there's a reason why the F-15 isn't launched from carrier decks, goes Mach 3, or has swing-wing capability. It was never designed for it, and there was never a need for it. The F-14 was also going to carry the AIM-120 (if the budget had been approved), but that doesn't mean it would have given up the AIM-54 (or its planned successors). The Tomcat was literally designed for the Phoenix, and having that long-range capability is what made it even more formidable and threatening, even if it wasn't what would directly cause the kill. It was the airborne equivalent of a spear versus a sword. To be fair, there is a lot about DCS that is not accurate to reality, especially when it comes to sensors and countermeasures. It may just be my personal opinion, but I suspect there are just as many (if not more) DCSisms that are going against the F-14/AIM-54 effectiveness as going for it. Whether they be due to the F-14/AIM-54 implementation that hinders itself (radars losing track too easily, missiles going into a loft after getting notched, inaccurate tracking/activation due to old missile API, etc.) or to overperforming defensive systems of other systems/modules (omniscient RWR, unrealistic ECM, RNG chaff, etc.). I'm very grateful for DCS and Eagle Dynamics for what they have created. But I do consider Heatblur to produce the highest quality simulations (though I may be biased). And when you have different developers creating modules, you're going to have different levels of quality and accuracy. Meshing them all together while trying to maintain realistic and intended functionality is a task I do not envy. And when systems are intertwined, and they are worked on by different developers (e.g. Heatblur's F-14 radar with ED's missile guidance with Mag3's MiG-21 RWR), things are bound to have problems. So I definitely would not praise or condemn the real F-14/AIM-54's capabilities based on its performance in DCS at any given time. Yes, they are old technology. But they were also the most advanced technology at the time, and continued to be upgraded. Really, I'm surprised with how little actual (reliable) information is known about the Phoenix for how old it is. It seems no one truly knows what it was and was not actually capable of. And that's a mystery that may never be solved. Were the F-14 and AIM-54 as great as the legends say? Probably not. But were they as "ineffective" as they are currently implemented/speculated? Also probably not. Reality is most likely somewhere between the two... the question is: where exactly?

I'm afraid I can't give details now, as I'm traveling this week. I actually had to copy and paste the new commands from the mod (2.7) files into my game (2.9) files. They are in the pilot controls list, but I think they are named similarly to the RIO controls. So the hooking controls are under the Hand Control Unit category... the half-action and full-action commands. Also the HCU horizontal and vertical axes.

Using the mod mentioned above, I can hook targets from the pilot seat, but I don't know how to lock them from the pilot seat.

That first question actually has me curious. Someone mentioned this mod that adds a lot of the RIO's control bindings to the pilot, so you can do a lot of stuff like hook targets or turn the MLC filter off. So maybe it's possible to add the pilot's control bindings to the RIO also? I'm not very familiar with RIO controls, so I haven't figured out how to actually lock onto a specific target from the pilot's seat yet. I don't know if there's really a way to do that accurately... just by how the RIO has to lock a target. I need to study more.