Temetre

AAA-publisher did quite a job on gamers :^)

The whole "historical version" seems like a fallacy. How is one existing plane version "more historical" than another? Why is a modern version less relevant? And specifically Phantoms, its not like they ever only flew in Vietnam. Were literally getting the most commonly produced variant of the aircraft, which most of the export models were originally based on. The F-4E variant clearly carries the most historical significance, if there is such a thing.

Thats definitely how it felt Very nice update!

I havent blacked out on my last launch, that was a quite welcome and nostalgic experience Idk if it was my imagination, but the F-14 also felt a bit more stable after launch. (then again I sometimes launches with parking break on because im a derp)

Looks dope. And the performance improvements are VERY welcome

TISEO will likely be only in the DMAS, and the DSCG is coming first. The 'feature creep' wasnt about a strobe RWR, Cobra said afterwards that they dont have one in the works.

Are you a fighter pilot? Or are you just assuming that its common to operatively remove the pilots humor?

Yeah, middle of the post I was like "wtf am i even doing here, im getting way too much into this". I was way overthinking the whole topic, halfway missing the point I wanted to make, and its no surprise my post was hard to follow, let alone seemed like a personal attack. Sorry for that!

You know what? That wasnt what I ment, and I probably couldve put it a lot better. I think the slippery slope argument was really stupid, but there was no personal attack intended. But theres really no point going on with that specific topic after that start, would be a waste of time for either of us.

Culture of soon? That was always a thing in game development, especially when developers want to deliver quality. Frankly, the will to delay is usually a sign of quality, compared to releasing it early.

Warning, Wikipedia stuff, so take it with a pinch of salt: My thought from that is, if true, then the missiles behaviour should be different even if the kinetmatic performance in itself is the same. After all, digital controls will likely change the function of the control logic, thats basically impossible to avoid. A different seeker and new proximity fuse might also change how the missile operates, and thus would also affect the sofware programing decisions. Youd also think that the makers/militaries just got smarter and more experienced at missile logic, so newer missiles should just be better. Aim-7M/MH are supposedly also the same missile, but got updated software.

Klarsnows bottomless pit of knowledge to the rescue Thanks, I knew I heard people talk about that but wasnt entirely sure what the source was.

There is a lot of different ways to use PN though. Even the most basic analogue PID controller can be tuned, and those missiles got pre-programmed flght profiles. So maybe theres differences, because the files look different? Idk. And as said, theres a possibility of updates around the F-4E release and beyond, especially for earlier Sparrows. Aim-7M uses exactly the same interface as Aim-7F, as far as I know? Im note sure if an F-4E would even require a software update to carry an Aim-7M. I was under the impression that the F-4E was even rated for the Aim-7M, but Ive not seen clear evidence for that. And as said lastly, if you got Aim-7Ms and F-4Es going up in A2A focussed missions against Mig-23s with R-24, its a no brainer to equip the planes with it. Thats just how war works, you dont throw away an advantage. That would be quite jarring. And if we just talk realism, the 7M had a bunch of upgrades over the 7F, even if DCS doesnt simulate it. I dont think its all or nothing, thats kinda my point: Theres a lot of arguments for adding it, and not having the 7M would be limiting in choice of scenario. Were not asking for something weird like R-27s to be added here.

Tbh im a bit confused where you got that from. Nobody was suggesting an absolute match. The point was that in terms of time-frame, Aim7E matches R-23, and Aim7M matches R-24. Otherwise yup, its purely scenario dependant, and either goes.

Aye, thanks for the clarification. Personally I dont mind the confusion much, im sure its wasnt intentional and I like if Devs talk a bit more openly about this stuff.

Didnt they call the F-16 Viper partialy as a reference to Battlestar Galactica? Seems to fit the kind of humor Jester shows pretty well. Top Gun was also a huge cultural influence when it came to planes. Idk why you think those jokes are a reddit thing, the average redditor doesnt got much humor. Is a bit weird to get so annoyed by jokes imo.

Interesting. First glance shows the M has a PN_coeff, makes me wonder if it has different guidance? Maybe the differences are limited, but there are some. Also I wouldnt be surprised if the earlier Aim-7s get an update when the F-4 comes. Do we? That seems more like a dogmatic idea, not necessarily a requirement, especially if they are rated for the missiles. Or if there is no extra reqirements or changes needed. As said, were already breaking historical accuracy by having F-4Es fight MLAs. DCS isnt just about reenacting exact history. In fact, if 7Ms work on the plane, it might be well unrealistic to not use them when going against dangerous opponents like MLAs with R-24s.

Sorry to disappoint you (me as well), but Cobra just made a statement that contradicts that apparently: Looks like its till open if they do APR-36? Its quite strange.

Btw, do we have any new info on the RWR? The more I look up and learn, the more questions I get. So the "APR-46" in the development report was apparently a typo, they ment the APR-36. Thats the improved analogue RWR that the F-4 used, and the ALR-46 is then the digital RWR replacement. And a month ago: Now HB is showing off the ALR-45/46 recently and only mentions that one in regards to the F-4E, calling it a final building block. Which is interesting, considering originally were just supposed to get the F-4E DSCG first, which would have the APR-36, as in the quote. I also wonder, is the APR-36 alphanumeric or not? Its quite confusing, with different versions and the A-10 apparently even combining 36/46 parts.

One comment (I think from HB devs?) was also that the F-4E radar would be the limitation in this regard, so a the inverse-monopulse seeker wouldnt really make much of a difference if modelled. With the manual Id just note that manuals arent always complete. And as said, a situations where you go up for A2A missions against Mig-23 MLAs with R-24s using an F-4E is fictional anyway. This kind of mission would obviously warrant different loadouts than strike missions, and it would depend on available ammunition stocks. Yeh, you have to limit the weapons to sparrows ofc^^ IIRC the radar is also massively underperforming and lacks a lot of features if it was supposed to be a -63(V1). Let alone the datalink, which probably is the biggest factor in the 2003 upgrade, beside the armament.

Hm, looking it up, the MLA (as in the late ML) started mass production in 78 according to wikipedia. But what I was more going about was, the R-24 was only introduced in 1981. Aim-7M would be 1982. So I feel if an F-4E and Mig-23 MLA are fully geared for air to air, they would likely have the same missiles? Small supplies of 7Ms and R-24s, with big bulks of 7E/F and R-23? Of course in reality planes like F-15 would do the A2A missions in hog the 7M supply, if its limited. But if we set up a scenario where those F-4s fight MLAs, I think theres strong arguments for having it use the 7M, assuming the Mig also gets R-24s. But its definitely interesting to think about, I agree! I think even our F-15C is basically 1985 standard, isnt it? That might be the appopriate enemy to go up against with the MLA, its a bit weird. The 23M sounds like a mess, but it would be more timeframe appropriate with F-4, and certainly quite interesting to fly!

That topic has been talked about a few times, the F-4E can apparently guide the -7M, the technology is apparently inherently backwards compatible or so.

Sure, but same way we could say that the newest Mig-23 MLA with the new R-24s probably arent very common in 1985, compared to respective older versions. And if you'd send out F-4s vs Mig-23s (let alone with R-24s), I would imagine they will be equipped with Aim-7Ms either way. The 7E equipped Phantom probably had them as backup weapons on strike missions?

Tbf if they do a preorder a month before and give us like 10-20% off, thats enough for me. Im a dumb konsoomer that gonna buy it anyway :^)

Jup, thats what im talking about. Getting offended just because the inferiority of the F-4 or superiority of the Mig-23 is questioned. Its pure projection, zero to do with what I wrote.