Temetre

From my testing using cable didnt improve anything notable compared to a USB Wifi stick. Lag and stability was basically the same, assuming theres line of sight from stick to headset; Wifi6 is really bad at barrier penetration. I prefer not using cable for comfort and considering it seems like the USB-C port is the easiest bit to break. Additionally you can connect a compact powerbank to remove the battery-limit for sessions.

Thats how I usually see people describe it. The nav system of our F-14 (without B(U)/GPS/PTID upgrades) isnt accurate enough to be the solo source for precise bombing.

Tbh if its useful and realistic, whats speaks against it besides the time+money spent to implement it? I like when the AI WSO/RIO is being helpful, also adds to the immersion, makes you feel like the backseaters isnt just an interface but actually being helpful. Somehow I thought Jester already does the callout, but I mustve imagined that

Seems like generally the F110s werent fitted as well for the Tomcat; most of them stayed on TF30s anyway. A bit ironic that despite all of that, the 30s had more issues with stalling. Guess they really like getting maximum, undisturbed ram air effect. Could be interesting to compare the fuel usage in mach 1.6 - 2 afterburner. Tho im too lazy for that currently.

I was reading a bit of this thread and was thinking 'the F4 does a lot of the F111 thing on a smaller (and less computer assisted) scale' HB has officially F14-early/F4-DMAS, Eurofighter and A6, very likely F-14B(U), probably naval F-4 on their platter. Wouldnt get hopes up about an F111 in any appreciable timeframe, even IF HB would say theyd like to do it. That said... being mostly a solo player two seaters always felt like a drawback to me, but Jester 2 is so easy to use/powerful/even kinda immersive, I think a HB F111 would be quite interesting.

Its probably worth considering that the APQ-120 in 1980 was also just, under any circumstances, hopelessly outdated compared to F-14/15/16. The more advanced multirole concept, like defending yourself in A2G missions without dropping bombs was only really experimented with the F-18. And, as others said, the F-Tens were massive money sinks with lots of incredible advanced features, but also many problems that required fixing. The engines were a mess till the mid 80s after all! Even Germany, who got F4s mainly as a stop gap measure, only upgraded their Phantoms so much because the Eurofighter program had massive delays. Greece and Turkey kept their F4s mainly in active reserve because of Turkey and Greece. The USAF F-4s did get some upgrades, like the DMAS with its digital INS/nav/computer system. But that was specifically a light, low cost upgrade, and reflected its kater role as a strike aircraft with basic self defense capabilties.

You probably want to figure out a very basic intercept course at first, depending on the targets bearing and heading+speed. Doesnt have to be overly precise, but its useful to get there to give Jester the best ability to lock. I wouldnt purely rely on the lock to get an intercept course; sometimes the call is more than enough and you can just use the Boresight mode for a good and easy lock. Against AI I find Jester gets locks reliably enough tho. A lot of people seem to make mistakes not considering altitude; if you dont wanna play with radar elevation, it helps to be slightly lower than your target. Thats best for the default scan volume and the radar likes the lack of clutter anyway. If you are somewhat certain about the targets direction, you can switch radar to 30 degree scan, that can speed up acquisition. Against low flying human players, things can get a lot more complicated. You often cant really guarantee to get a useful lock, especially at ranges where Aim-7s are effective, due to the 4 second delay. Again, getting your own intercept course, having SA and spotting enemies yourself is quite valuable.

I do sometimes have talks with people about where green ends and blue starts. I have no problems with color visions, but at times my brain interpretes those colors differently than many others With reflections and different lighting conditions it only gets more complex. Our brains always try to estimate what a color would look like under 'normal' light conditions before determining what color it actually is. Its messy and can border on religion. So no wonder people struggle with stuff like modelling how light works in model planes. For those who know:

Theres been a lot of talk on the HB forums about the complexity of Aim-54 guidance and its limited simulation in DCS. I dont think there was any talk of there being a big rework of the DCS missile API. And im not sure these limitations have much to do with the topics points, like the missiles acchieved speed or notably affect the tracking capability. Its two issues if I remember correctly: 1. The DCS missile API isnt complex enough to fully replicate the mixture of active/semi-active/guidance-commands over the two missiles and the many different launch modes. So its a bit dumbed down, like the Aim-54C uses coder more akin to a 120, but is generally realistic. 2. In part thanks to overly accurate RWRs in many modules, its too easy to notch the F14/Aim-54. That one is another common talking point. Engines perform very differently over different altitudes/speeds/angle of attacks etc, and apparently the F-14A engines actually can outperform the 14Bs acceleration in this very specific scenario. Probably combined with a slight drag advantage over the Bs engines. The 14B beats it handily in efficiency and being more consistently powerful/efficient over different flight regimes. Also reliability of course.

Tbf in reality pilots apparently lowered the volume to almost minimum as well, because it just gave so many warnings.

Btw is it actually false warning? I thought it was more like the 21s RWR, where it just picks up radar from the entire battlefield but cant seperate them effectively. Outside of the own radar interference, that sounds pretty troubling.

And youre not wrong with that. Maybe im bad at communicating it, but I think the difference isnt quite as big as people sometimes think. For example, is an F4 more suitable for solo operation than a Mig-21 in DCS? Sure! Yet if the Mig-21 gets AWACS support (like EWRS mod), it will immediately dominate the F4 in terms of SA. Give it real soviet style GCI and its not even funny anymore. I would assume the Mig-29 has better SA than the F4 tho, aside from the RWR. Its radar is superior and so is the view out of the cockpit. Aerodynamics/thrust also helps navigating and reacting to dangerous situations. The SPO15 is a weakpoint, but it can see SARH launches I 'think', which the F4 cant.

Why? You can just mute or disable the RWR in situations where it doesnt help.

This talk reminds me of the F4. Realtively high thrust compared to same era planes, but also inefficient engines at low/medium altitudes. Otoh you can stretch range a lot by flying optimally and high altitude. So a good range advantage over older interceptors, but the combination of fuel fraction and 'all around' engine efficiency is weaker compared to other jets like the F14B/16/18 or so. Requires more careful flying if you need some range than some other planes. If that means 'can go far' or 'no range' is more of a semantic discussion, and dependant on what you compare it too.

I wouldnt oversell the GCI aspect either tho. Even if there was an assumption that american planes dont get the same 'direct GCI control', they were still built to fly pre-planned and directed missions. Our heavily upgraded 75' F4 isnt very good in terms of SA either, despite one of the best pulse radar setups and RWRs at hand. Neither red nor blue gets the luxury of real world level of direction and guidance, thats why most servers use super powerful AWACS mods.