Kageseigi

Please forgive me for the off-topic question, but related to the video... I know Jest(h)er is limited compared to an authentic, trained RIO, but in a multi-bandit situation like in the video, all I hear is a lot of clock calls in quick succession (12 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 5 o'clock). Is/was there any official communication practices for distinguishing between bandits/contacts during such a furball? I can imagine that with only two bandits, it may be somewhat simple to maintain clear communication, but what about when there are three or more? I'm quite curious to learn the official practices.

I know there's a lot of talk about AI, but has anyone seen any general improvement in kill percentage against human targets?

I ordered this product, so it came as a package. I assume it is all new MkIV components. I haven't had any MkIII or earlier products.

I just received my stick (much faster than I was expecting), and I'm eagerly awaiting the STECS! I have another question if you don't mind. I've searched and read that the maximum recommended spring load for the MkIII was #50+30 or #40+40, where earlier models were up to #50+40 or even #50+50. What is the maximum recommended spring load for the MkIV? I'm currently running #50+20 (with a 200mm extension) just to be safe. Oh, and I also read to not overtighten the dampeners. Is that to prevent damage or is it just to allow proper movement? I guess I'm in " having my first baby" mentality, so I may be being overly cautious Anyway, I want to thank you guys again... amazing product!

Congratulations on the launch! I'm so excited for this and the STECS! I'm looking to get the Gunfighter IV 'F-14 Combat Edition' - Extended (Pro-L). Before I do, I just have a couple of questions. This will be my first high-end stick, so I've always been used to the flat-bottom sticks that sit on my desk. I'm getting the extended version so I can have a true center-stick configuration. Other than the actual mount/rail itself, is there anything else that the Gunfighter will need in order to be mounted? For example, will it need a "Small Base Plate for Gunfighter"? If so, is it included? If I remember correctly, the Mk III said that one was not included. And if it's not needed, what is it for? Also, the Mk IV says that it includes a "Wide stance tabletop baseplate"... is that accurate even for the extended version? Secondly, I'm in the US, so the website says: I'm hoping to order both the Gunfighter and the STECS Max when it is released. So it looks like the price before shipping will be $782 ($463 + $319), but the shipping will take it over $800. So just to confirm, I would be better off making two separate orders, correct? Or does the tariff ignore shipping fees, and I should order both together to save on shipping? Thank you so much, and I hope to be a super happy customer soon!

Thank you so much for the updates! By chance, did the AIM-54 gain any notch resistance outside of the mentioned improvements?

Oh my, why am getting William Wallace vibes from the Tomcat all of a sudden? That's ok. I still believe in the fire and lightning! Sure, Eagles can fly with only one wing, but Tomcats don't need any... just like Superman

On the North American VKB site, it says that all of the Gunfighter models are sold out. I've tried to find information/news/announcements about why or for how long, but I haven't been able to. Does anybody know anything about that? I'm hoping to build a new computer soon, and the extended VKB F-14 Gunfighter is my ideal stick to get, so I'm just trying to prepare. Thank you!

Yeah, in this particular fight, the bandit fired an AMRAAM at 11 miles, and immediately went defensive for a notch in case the Tomcat fired... which it did right within 10 miles a few seconds later. The bandit stayed in the notch until the last second, then broke into the missile which missed. So I don't know if it was defeated by the notch or chaff. Granted, the Tomcat did turn cold at some point to defend against the AMRAAM, so the pilot may have not tried to support the Phoenix all the way in (knowing it was already pitbull). And the Phoenix did track most of the way. But it still makes me wonder if a fully supported AIM-54C would have an advantage over the currently modeled auto-active AIM-54C in this type of situation. Or perhaps they have it modeled where the supporting radar overrides the missile radar if it is still tracking? Probably not, but I don't have that knowledge. Then again, I don't even know how good the AWG-9 tracking capabilities are compared to an AIM-54's internal tracking capabilities, A or C model. P.S. It may have been mentioned before, but is the AWG-9 itself even susceptible to being spoofed by chaff at all? Perhaps the AIM-54 versions are overly susceptible in DCS currently, but would chaff ever even have a prayer of spoofing an AWG-9 supported missile?

I just watched a BVR fight in which it appeared the Tomcat pilot was attempting to keep the bandit higher than him, which I'm assuming was so he could have the MLC filter off in order to avoid getting notched using STT. I'm also assuming he was using the AIM-54C variant. Anyway, the tactic got me to come back and read some of this thread, and it made me question something. Since the C version has to go active in DCS instead of remaining SARH if supported all of the way to the target, does this make using the above tactic rather ineffective? In other words, since the C goes active, does the target only have to notch the missile's radar instead of the F-14's? If so, then how much more susceptible is the Phoenix's radar to being notched than the AWG-9 with the MLC filter off? And would that make an A version or even a Sparrow a more attractive missile to use with that tactic?

Yes, I've always been curious about that. Does Jester make calls based on the plane's orientation? I wonder if this will all be addressed with Jester 2.0? I love Jester and all of the work that the devs has put into him. Though I would like the ability to "customize" him in some ways. Such as: The ability to tell Jester to "be professional" to stick to simple, clear information calls, to "be himself" which would allow for all of his callouts, or even to "be dramatic" which would limit most of his calls to ones with attitude or nonsense. The ability to tell Jester to limit his callouts during a dogfight to speed only, to bandit position only, or to speed and bandit position only. Alongside "emergency" callouts like "missile inbound" and "we're hit." The ability to customize the format of callouts. For example, a speed callout could be limited to simple numbers: "320," "480," "550"... not something like: "155... we're getting too slow" or "600... we're going ballistic!" As another example, bandit position callouts could be limited to simple time positions: "1 o'clock," "3 o'clock low," "11:30," or "6 o'clock high"... not something like: "Dead ahead" or "he's on our six!" The ability to set the rate for certain callouts like speed or bandit positioning. For example, in the first part of this message, a single "4 o'clock high" may not be enough information in a maneuvering dogfight. Jester may need to "walk" the pilot to the bandit in quick succession, especially if the relational maneuvering is quickly changing (on a [re]merge). Again, I love Jester and all of the information he brings. But he does exist to assist the pilot, not necessarily to entertain him. While I'm happy that he does both, we are dealing with a computer/AI. Being able to take advantage of that, and turning him more into an automated information source instead of an actual jester, could be very, very helpful sometimes.

I think this is probably the most accurate statement. There are three ways to fly in DCS: By the book. The way you are "supposed" to fly. Pushing the limits. "Cheating" by doing things that you aren't "supposed" to do, but could be done (in reality). Gaming the system. "Cheating" by doing things that should not be possible (exploiting flaws in the simulation). At least against modern fighters, it seems that the F-14/AIM-54 combination relies heavily on #2, but gets hard countered by #3.

Yeah, I figure if I know the theoretical max range, then I have a standard to base everything else on. Then I can start plugging in numbers to get a better sense of how much the effective range will be reduced based on conditions. Perhaps also how much I could/should manipulate the closure rate with cranking depending on the target's speed and actions. I guess to create my own personal MAR (or YOLO schedule) based on my flying style. Oh my, I'll remember to not take a 140nm shot, haha! And thanks!

Speaking of range, are there any charts or details displaying the Phoenix's actual maximum range? Even theoretical or (DCS) simulated? That is, assuming the F-14 were firing at a perfectly stationary target (something like a hovering balloon or helicopter in zero wind), how far out could the missile actually travel and hit (not needing to alter intercept course)? And how long would it take to reach that target?

Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the lack of Phoenix success due more to ED's missile tracking implementation than due to its flight performance? In other words, it doesn't matter how much energy and velocity the missile has, it's really up to the extent of how ED programs chaff RNG, the size of the notching envelope, the random flight path when tracking is lost, and also module developers' level of realism in their RWR systems' coverage. Combining all of those things may very well make the Phoenix perform much worse (or better if at the other extreme) than it would in real life. Kind of like when a video game has a visible red laser on every sniper rifle or when a boss flashes red before an unblockable attack... what should be a truly scary and lethal threat can be made almost negligible by simple changes (even if not intended). And that's not even taking AI omniscience into account.

Congrats on the 4070! Enjoy it! For others interested, though I don't know the price in Canada, the 6750XT is currently on sale for $309 (after rebate).

Thanks, guys. Yes, a new system (whether 5800X3D or 7800X3D) is the goal. Was just curious if $200 could buy me some time before I have to go $1,000+

I have an old i7-4820k with an RX 580. I saw that there is a sale on the RX 6600 currently, so I wanted to see how hard DCS was pushing both the CPU and GPU, and if the RX 6600 would be worth upgrading to with my current CPU. So I managed to get MSI Afterburner working (at least, it seems to be working). I was expecting to see my CPU maxed out, but it actually displayed my GPU as being maxed out, and my CPU didn't even really hit 40% usage. So I was looking at some YouTube videos to see how well older CPUs could perform on DCS. And I was noticed something. It seems that CPU loads can be nowhere near 100% with the GPU usage pretty low also, but the FPS can be horrendous. For example, in this video... Notice on the left, even though the CPU usage did spike up way high at a few points in this segment, there were times when it was still ~50% with the GPU running under 15%. Yet the FPS was under 15. So I'm curious why neither the GPU or CPU maxed out in order to reach a higher FPS. Or is the display just not accurate? And if that's not the case, then what really was the limiting factor? And I suppose I may as well ask, in my case, what GPU would max out an i7-4820k? Would an RX 6600 be overkill for it? Though even if so, it may be a decent GPU for when I am able to build a new computer. Thank you!

Thanks for the video! I know Snort caught a lot of flak for his embellished stories and unorthodox methods, but Puck makes it sound like it was the norm for F-14A pilots. At about 37:20 in the video, he starts talking about all the "cheating" they would do. There was a lot of talk of pulling circuit breakers and such, but he also mentions always keeping the wings at 20 degrees. I had heard of the circuit breaker trick that supposedly gives more thrust, but I hadn't heard of the one that disables the main flaps to get clean air across the tail. Or about corner speed being 425 at 8G. So what is a wannabe ace Tomcat simulator pilot supposed to take away from all of this? I've read a lot on these forums about the proper way to fly, and to trust the systems in place (such as to always leave the wings in automatic mode). Are the "cheats" more of just anecdotal war stories that have very limited practical use? Are they more super-lethal "grandmaster" level techniques that you should never begin to explore until you've achieved perfect harmony with your plane? Or are they simply things you should pretend don't even exist... absolutely, period, not another word? So confusing. I guess the best way to learn is to just do EVERYTHING and see what works? Are the any dedicated DCS F-14 Cheat Youtube channels?

Thanks for the video! At about 20:42 after he merged with the F-5, he said, "Typically, the first guy that goes up is in a bad place." Is there any specific reason for that? Especially when using the Tomcat?

Interesting. I'm trying to learn what technology DCS likes the most. What does it like about Nvidia over AMD?

Sounds great! Thank you so much! Yeah, I have a 50-inch 1080p tv. Only 60 Hz, but I'd prefer size over speed... at least for flying. Plus, I already have it, so no need to spend more. And I was amazed by the low power use of the non-XT 6800 while still giving great performance (especially compared to my 580). I have an APC 1350v UPS, so I'm hoping to be able to use it with a new system. And yes, I'm definitely going for 64GB RAM!

Interesting. Thank you for that. Curious... if one were to consider only DCS, how would the i5 13600KF compare to the 5800X3D? I suppose a new build based on the latter would be cheaper also. And another question. Assuming only DCS at 1080 and 2D, if I were to build around an RX 6800 GPU, which would be the best CPU choice? That is... so neither would really limit the other. If the 6800 can max out 1080 with no issue, then assume the limiting resolution. Thanks!

Indeed, I am curious how it would be to sit in the RIO seat for a non-Iceman AI driven plane. Though I guess sitting is all that could be done. I assume everything is simplified, so all of the systems are just being simulated (a "simception"?) as though they are happening, though nothing is actually happening as it would in a player's plane. I believe Iron Mike posted a video the other day showing their testing tool (maybe an AI?) that is able to complete a perfectly level turn at speed which uses the rudders to keep the plane aligned, though I can't remember the thread. I wonder if there would be much hope in turning something like that into an F-14 version of the Falco AI? Haha, I'd love to see them set that thing loose in dogfight servers, and see how a perfectly controlled Tomcat would fare against the other jets!

Haha, I wanted to press the issue a bit further, so here's our conversation... That lase part must mean we can safely assume that there will be a Top Gun 3 in the future! Maverick is in no danger of being replaced by an AI... especially when the AI itself is recommending humans remain involved! I continued to ask it about machine learning and such, and it seems that it is extremely limited in what it can actually do itself for a simple user like me. Though it makes me wonder if Jester/Iceman is a simple AI or if Heatblur used machine learning at all... or if they have considered using machine learning for future upgrades