Temetre

Probably, but that depends on ED on adding the variant. Tbh the 45A can be quite powerful and reasonably far ranging (or be lofted from low altitude). Its just kinda buggy right now. AFAIK the only difference with the B will be a better rocket motor for more range, otherwise it uses the same sensor heads.

Tbf I dont really know the system, but it always kinda made sense to me: For the gun solution In a nose-to-tail turning fight not to fall short, the computer would need to know both the exact turning/roll/acceleration rate of your own aircraft and the enemy aircraft. AND, this is the tricky part, then extrapolate what happens if the planes keep turning. Which would be difficult to get accurate in the first place; but worse, if the enemies turn rate/speed/roll/acceleration isnt staying exactly the same, that extrapolation could be wildly off by itself. So for example if the enemy does a slight roll additional to its turn, the aim point would already be off again. So it would make sense for me when the interpolation then just doesnt extrapolate turning, or only to a limited degree. Sure its gonna be off in a turn fight, but if its consistently off in the same way, as someone noted, then an experienced pilot can account for the limitations of the computer aim. So that would make kinda sense to me. Mind older planes like the F-4 got much worse radar gunsights than the F-14. In the Phantom you really need to understand the sights limitations, and sometimes you might just not even bother with it. Im not sure, F16/18 might have really smart computers that can do some of that extrapolation, but that requires very accurate sensors and complex computer software with lots of calculations and predictive formulas.

Btw if you havent seen it, the Heatblur F4 manual got a ton of information about the Aim9 variants and their capabilities. null

MAC was supposed to be a different game. Its on ice now tho, probably for the better.

Sure, and Im truly enjoying the F-4E right now. The trouble didnt stop me. But I also think its not hard to find things that miss the mark, when its "marks" like ED/RB right now completely undermining the business models of the entire platform. Because, for example, if the next updates cause the RB modules to degrade - and updates on the scale of multithreading will wreck them - then that will absolutely stop people from enjoying Razbam modules. Theres other things than DCS to enjoy, but I think it would be a shame if DCS - and the flight sim community - take a hit as a whole.

I dont feel that way at all. Sure, some of the releases are amazing, like the F-4E is actually god tier. I think Kola is great if it keeps getting worked on. But what do early access releases matter, when we dont know if they get finished? Or if they are finished, maintained so we can keep them flying? I dont want to spend 30-60 bucks just to hope the devs stay mature and dont butt heads.

If the first sparrow doesnt work, try throwing a dozen more. Sounds about right

When I tested it, the SA-6 wasnt engaged by the -25 seeker, but by the -49 heads. Idk whats going on tbh. Mb some bug cuz the SA-6 technically has two radars? A search and a tracking radar.

I found plenty issues in the first 2 minutes of a mission tbh

edit: Tbh I think Shrike guidance just might be deeply and utterly bugged. No clue whats going on sometimes. -------------- Idk if that chart is correct. The Shrikes seekersays MK 49 is required for the SA-6 "straight flush" search radar: Im getting tone and (buggy) guidance on the SA-6 search radar. Frankly tho, my tests and others indicate that Shrike guidance is just deeply and utterly bugged. Sometimes they give tone and guide, but only sometimes, lofting Shrikes dont activate at all for me, search radars sometimes only get tracked during active engagement (and not during search). Sometimes they track only long range, or only short range. Idk if there is some hidden complexity to explain any of that.

Thank you @KlarSnow, this clears up a LOT of questions I had

I see, didnt know the USAF didnt use flare dispensers before. Thats funny. But yeh, if you wanna simulate that, gotta zero the flare/chaff in the editor.

Tbh, Im usually going with "make it dependant on the scenario". The integration is technically viable and even has been possibly done on some F-4Es, and at least on similar F-4Gs. And after all its a nuanced discussion without a clear answer, so by default Id say "add it". After all, even the difference between E1/2 and F is gonna be quite big, and same with the Aim-9. Allowing the 7M gives more flexibility for the scenario (fictional or export-craft), and doesnt really change the requirement of limiting equipment to the timeframe. Same can be said for weapons like the GBU-15, for example. Idk about the Aim-7P tho; at least the mid course guidance would be unusable on the F-4E, so it would be somewhat strange to have.

Yup, thats my understanding too. Has some later upgrades like the 'dogfight-mode'/CAA switches.

At least on the A-10 it says APR-36, despite an ALR being behind it^^ Its weird tbh xD I think so, the ALR-46 would be early 70s, so youd have a recently upgraded F-4E. Those even flew in late vietnam I think. Now Im not sure what the AN/ALE-40 changed tho; but I imagine its just more capacity? Could easier just ignore that detail, or limit countermeasures.

My bad, I was being too vague as well xD I ment to say, when the F-14 upgraded in the 80/90s to the ALR-67, that was vastly more advanced than than the ALR-46. The F-14 kinda skipped the F-4E Phantoms ALR-46. AFAIK those two RWRs might also be closer than they look; the F-14 just has an outdated display scheme for the most part. But the ALR-45 has lights for certain SAM systems, like it can show "SA6" when it identifies that one of the contacts is an SA6. It just doesnt show which one. If I had to make a guess, the reason is almost certainly cost and necessity. Doing a 45 -> 46 upgrade for the Tomcat wouldnt be cheap, and who knows how much the system would need to be adjusted for the Tomcat. F14s likely already burned a hole in the Navys budget without extra upgrades, and this is while Vietnam is going on. On the other hand, the F-4E probably needed the RWR also much more; it was much more active in Vietnam, and operating close to north-vietnamese SAMs, while having to react to regular Mig' ambushes. Many Phantoms were lost after all. Thats likely the main reason why our F-4E is stuffed with an almost absurd amount of tech for a 60s airframe, it was one of the most important active combatants of the USAF (and USN to a degree). Otoh, the poor amazing Tomcat was always a bit behind in terms of upgrades, suffering from cost, post-Vietnam budget cuts and a role that never got quite relevant. Thats my assumptoin, might be wrong of course Best thing is, on the A-10 the cockpits RWR-screen actually has an APR-36 marking. But while they kept that screen, the tech behind it was upgraded multiple times with digital RWRs. I think that mightve been part why even Heatblur got confused about it on the Phantom Maybe thats also the case for the F-4E? An APR-36 screen with ALR-46 tech behind it.

To avoid confusion, its the ALR-46, not APR-46. Thats based on an earlier confusion^^ Our F-4E got the OOFP-5 or so modifications as well, thats also around 1980. The base configuration of the plane is older tho; and if you limit equipment accordingly, its very close to a late cold war F-4E. This stuff gives a bit more flexibility for when you use the F-4E in other scenarios, or with foreign liveries/places etc. I dont know why taht would be hard to believe. The 80s F-14s got a much more capable ALR' RWR than the Phantoms -46.

Yeh thats my stance too. Hesitant to buy anything till the RB situations is cleared up. Im not happy with EDs radio silence on this major issue.

Aye, that makes sense. Theres probably also gradients to how the M2K handles it, im not 100% sure. Neat tho

Interesting. Is it done like in RBs M2K, which afaik assumes a static percentage of RCS with tail/side/top/bottom for all aircraft? (like as a made up example, frontally it might always assume planes to reflect 80% RCS) I wouldnt worry about that tbh. Mind, the F-4E is from the same time as the Mig-21. Meaning you rely on EWRS warning planes, and youre not really reliant on finding targets with the radar, and youre not reliant on BVR combat anyway. Even in the worst case, you will be able to skip most radar complexity with dogfight-radar modes that go up to 5 miles out, which is well above the engagement range of a Mig-21 or often even Mirage F1 carrying Matra 550s. Also, just looking at the manual, the jester functionality seems to be heavily expanded and much more easy to control. It honestly sounds quite impressive as to how HB improved Jester, and I imagine hell be easier to manage than in the F-14 anyway, considering long range BVR/TWS shennanigans arent of concern in the Phantom.

Some seem completely useless for non-nuclear, others seem very niche, like Dive Laydown for horizontal clusterbomb delivery. But even Dive Toss apparently was reliant on good maintenance and well trained pilot/WSO, and thats the 'easiest' to use mode.

Aye, Im aware Afghanistan has a lot more going on than just more recent COIN stuff. Wags was however highlighting that its the modern map and will likely be mostly about COIN missions; if people will follow that logic or not is ofc another question, but it threw up the question. The problem with mission design is that DCS only really supports heavily scripted and predictable missions; Im not sure how much this lends itself to the chaotic/unpredictable nature of COIN missions. AI enemies cant react dynamically to players' presence and actions, which imo would be a core feature of counter insurgency. Besides the lacking of autonomy, im also concerned about the general AI. For example, ground units struggle to move in a straight line often enough without getting stuck, their situational awareness is not simulated. Neither is the allimportant factor of suppression, let alone realistic fragmentation damage from bombs. COIN often relies on the inferiority of anti-air of insurgents, but there is very little limitation to AA-fire in DCS; a single AK trooper might fire with the awareness and precision of a highly trained Gepard SPAAG crew. They also are not limtied by night-time, as another issue. All in all I dont see the technical basis for COIN operations in current DCS. So I wonder if (or rather hope) were gonna get some big AI upgrades with that map coming?

Its a bit hard to see how Afghanistans' focus on COIN gameplay is gonna be realized, with the current limitations of DCS' AI, ground units and air defense, as well as the very static/scripted mission structure. (Wags said Afghanistan is intended to be a counter insurgency focussed maps, see the recent interview below:)

Why do you even want an Afghanistan map then?

Aye. Suppose ill wait for more detailed info when people start trying the EA. Your GPU/PC got a bunch more memory than anyone elses^^