

Temetre
Members-
Posts
766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Temetre
-
But the F-16 has a bunch of stuff too. Like, a much more modern wing design, with stuff like vortex generators that should help at low speed/high AoA. Also less draggy design, and FBW should also help with optimizing use of lift+control surfaces. The modern engine is probably also more versatile over different flight regimes, so maybe better at low speed/high AoA than the F4s old turbojets? Id be surprised if the F4 can keep up with that, but Id be very curious to try. The Viper really isnt *that* bad at low speed maneuvering, it just suffers against other 4th gens, which include some of the best 'one turn' dogfighters ever made. I would find it seriously impressive if the Phantom can keep up with that!
-
People keep saying that, but were flying Mig-21s just fine without tanking. Idk, its still got a ton of thrust and a powerful FBW, even at slow speed. I havent tried it, but feels like it should be able to outturne 3rd gen planes at low speeds.
-
Id be curious, but not willing to spend money on the module. Im pretty sure the F-4G would require a dedicated human backseater thats willing to learn the Gs backseat operation, and thats something very rare. I feel thats way more niche than eg F-14 or F-4E backseaters. So no, Id probably never get to "really" use the F-4G in the way its supposed to be used. Obviously that might create a bias in me, but IIRC ED once said something like only 10-15% of DCS' players ever step into an online server. Then consider the filters, how many of those: 1. Play reguarly with the same people 2. Wanna be mostly in the backseat 3. Wanna learn the F-4G EW equipment operation, which is apparently extremely theory-heavy and requires you to do stuff like identify radars by ear Obviously theres gonna be some people, and theres nothing wrong with this. If HB can make a 4G for them, cool. But thats gotta be a tiny target audience, compared to something like the F-4E.
-
It definitively is a main issue, but whatever Heatblur does, they have to do the economic calculation as well. They cant make a module thats not financially viable. Obviously we cant know how the calculation on that would looke on an F-4G, but I suspect it would be a much harder sell than an F-4E or F-4J/S. Yes, Viper/Hornet radars have been improved massively. The biggest issue of DCS is probably that orientation of aircraft has no effect on RCS currently. Even Mirage just does some naive assumptions about detection range depending on aspect, because theres nothing hardcoded or so.
-
Should heading hold follow the heading bug IRL ?
Temetre replied to Schlomo1933's topic in DCS: F-14A & B
Yup, its apparently realistic, the F-14 is just a bit weird in this regard. Its got less AP-functionality than some older planes like some of the F-4s or A-4s apparently. Or rather, the AP only works in some directed modes, like carrier landing and maybe some datalink control modes (IIRC not implemented or outdated for our F-14). -
Mb try to disable sharpening? That can cause artefacts sometimes, when lighting effects are exaggerated by it.
-
To be fair, Im happy to hear there is something coming either way.^^ From the posts HB is pretty clear that this degradation is mostly apparent in campaigns where wear/tear applies after multiple missions. Otherwise its gonna be more stuff like damaging your craft by overstepping the G-limit of components, for example. I dont think thatll be too extreme. If we talk about absurd situatons where an enemy can over-G like crazy but you cant because of the wear/tear... I dont think thatll feel too bad, considering how much ahead the F-4 is to contemporary planes.
-
Huh, so they got a better damage model in WW? Thats peculiar that its not available to cold war planes then Or maybe what Zabu on the HB discord mean was specifically missiles, that their AoE damage is too simplistic to allow more localized frag damage. Tbf thats apparently mostly a bug with the first pavespike, and it got improved with a software update^^ I imagine its gonna be rather clunky to use. But hey, LGBs in the 1970s must be crazy! I wouldnt mind that at all, generally it would be nice to have some more universal APIs for stuff like radar or so, that 3rd party devs could build on (if they dont want to make their own). A while ago Razbam announced they are making their own AI for the F-15E backseat, but IIRC they said it might come after release.
-
Funnily enough, the F-4E should still be one of the best front aspect attack planes in that era. Its got Aim7-E/Fs after all Depending on scenario, the 1977 Aim-9L is also the first all aspect variant. (though not quite the first actively cooled Aim-9 afaik)
-
Also that one I wanna interject. The US never has seriously executed the high/low mix idea. That was mostly about politics. High/Low was a strat to sell the F-16 politically, but after just ~10 years theres the F-16C, which has bunch of expensive avionics and capabilities. Its maybe a "mid" tier, and the F-18 is more expensive than that. Additionally, the F-16 mainly turned into a short to medium range strike (and SEAD) aircraft, while the F-15C is the primary air superiority aircraft. F-15E is for more specific, higher end strike missions. Those aircrafts had very different roles. The F-35 is just a very expensive plane. I dont think it was ever considered low, and these days its definitely high.
-
That just feels conrtradictory. So you argue light fighters start agile but lose the agility? But what about big fighters tehn, do they just keep the agility because they can? The resulting logic would be "big fighters tend to be more agile than light fighters", which is the opposite from what you said. Additionally, F-18 and Mig-29 are 11 tons empty weight or so. So those are light fighters, like the 5.5 ton early Mig-21, but not like the 12 ton F-15A? That just feels like it backs up the idea that light fighters arent more agile than heavy fighters.
-
F-4E Phantom Development Report - DCS Newsletter 31/03/2023
Temetre replied to IronMike's topic in DCS: F-4E Phantom
Tbf I dont think anyone was saying the F-5 is bad. The Mig-21 also can be a ton of fun and is constantly recommended, even tho its got a bunch of shortcomings. -
Its all quite diluted. Tbh my kinda takeaway from that is still that something like "light fighters are more agile" doesnt really add up. Sometimes they are, but often they arent. In reality every aircraft is a massive sum of compromises and design goals. Lift/drag/weight/thrust and all the other fun stuff is a bunch of competing variables. And yeh apparently the Mig-29 has actually relatively high wing load. Who knows, maybe it overperforms in DCS too.
-
I think one of the bigger impacts this will have, outside of persistence, is just the fact that the performance of most pats of the aircraft is simulated in some way. DCS' damage model sadly isnt intelligent enough to really apply damage to specific systems, but it 'could' affect damage management. And also G-forces or operational mistakes. Eg the Pave Spike TGP, if you forget to activate it before launch, will be worn/damaged by it sloshing around durng maneuvers (normally an electric motor keeps it focussed). Doing high G maneuvers beyond its limits will also degrade the pod. Not destroy it, but eg slow the motor at first. Some of that might only be apparent over multiple missions, but I imagine doing the Viper thing where you 9G with a TGP and MK-84s will have some consequences. Another possiblity is to have a "reliability level" as managed, either simulating factory-QA variety or flaws in equipment handling. Like, from the sounds of it, calling the system "wear and tear" is a massive understatement. This is more akin to a full damage/system simulation model. Cant tell how well itll work and how it developes, theres a lot of things that can go wrong with such a system. But it sounds like theres insane potential.
-
I would imagine it is an external file that can probably be edited. After all, "campaigns" in DCS are usually just seperate missions, even the scripted non-dynamic campaigns. Same goes for any dynamic campaign like liberation or player managed online campaigns. There is no continuity feature anywhere in the game. Nor would it make sense to have your "practice F-4" to degrade the same plane you fly in a set of regular online missions with your mates.
-
Tbh that part im very curious about. I originally believed that as well, but from what Ive learned it doesnt seem to hold up as much, at least compared to the likes of a Mig-21Bis. For once, big wings usually add to agility (if the plane can use them efficiently at AoA), and their drawback is drag. Something very visible on the Mig-21, in fact. But the F-4E has more powerful engines with a higher T/W ratio, which is the tool to overcome drag and quite relevant in a dogfight. The pre-slats F-4s issue seems to be more the instability at high angles of attack, rather than basic aerodynamic capabilities. And after all, heavy weight, big wings and powerful engines is also the F15/F14. Later SU-27, and the Mig-29 isnt that small either (neither is the Hornet). Extremely powerful dogfighters. The Mirage 2000 is probably the only truly small fighter in DCS that really plays way out of its league in a dogfight. And the F-5 apparently, ahead of its time but making compromises (eg in engines).
-
I was noting that the Mig-21 is one of the exceptions in wing surface. However, delta wings arent magic and it took a while till planes really figured them out. They have more drag, which negates some of the additional lift delta designs usually offer. Seems like the Mirage 2000 is one of the first to master the delta in an agile fighter, also thanks to FBW and modern tech. Pilots IRL actually described the 21Bis especially as pretty heavy in feel, and in DCS, where it probably overperforms, it still has massive drag and speed loss when it actually utilizes the wing for harder turns. Even the emergency afterburner cant balance that out. Hence calling a Mig-21Bis "agile" is just very far out there, if you consider anything beyond ITR. Its kinda miserable against any actually agile planes. I dont got the F-5, but heard even that one just flies circles around the Mig-21Bis, despite its weak engine. Only thing the Mig can try is the vertical. The area where the Mig-21Bis might be good is compared to other 2nd/3rd gen fighter who are just really bad at dogfighting. But thats more like a "one eyed among the blind" thing, rather than being a good dogfighter in itself. Compared to the first versions, afaik one of the biggest practical differences in our F-4E is in fact having "dogfight switches" similar to F15E/F16, as well as a (improved?) boresight radar acquisition mode (AAC). Yup thats the one, its like a dogfight switch and IIRC comes with a new boresight mode.
-
True, the mirage 2000 is something else, and delta wings are a bit of an exception
-
That framing doesnt make sense. Big fighters have bigger engines and wings to make up for wingload and T/W. In fact, they have an easier time, because bigger planes are generally more efficiency in terms of internal volume. That is why big fighters like the F-15 are more versatile and powerful across the board, compared to smaller planes. In fact, most "light fighters" actually got pretty high wingloading, and that btw includes the F-16. The late Mig-21 was also considered rather sluggish, because upgrades and increased fuel load added to the wing load. With thrust to weight, the F-16s powerful engine is even the exception. Most 3rd gen fighters got much weaker T/W than the F-4. And that btw includes the Mig-21Bis, which has a very poor T/W-ratio in dry thrust. The "emergency afterburner" is a bit of a gimmick, more like a desperate attempt to get some more thrust out of the engine. Its extremely wasteful in a plane that has too little fuel in the first place, and AFAIK has some reliablity issues. In reality, its pretty much the opposite: Small planes have to make many more copromises than bigger jets, hence often worse TW and wing loads. Aka they are less agile. They didnt, Migs had a massive tactical advantage waging a defensive "guerilla war", while american jets focussed on SAM-threats, and at the end of the war they still got consistently defeated. 3:1 kill rate of Phantoms btw. Yup, training and maintenance is always blamed for the failures of soviet planes, yet nobody can explain why western export planes performed so much better. Or why the soviets are so bad at training other air forces (yet better with their own?). Not to mention, we literally know the soviets trained their pilots less than western users. Their planes had inferior avionics and shorter lifespan flight hours (allowing less training). I find it very doubtful that the same planes wouldve been that much better in soviet hands. That idea just seem biased when taken this far, and mostly rely on "paper numbers".
-
Yeah, its often a side-effect of other requirements. Another part of why the Navy planes like F14/18/4 were good dogfighters is probably because they needed the slow speed charachteristics anyway, for carrier ladings (and the F-4 still needed slats). Or how high altitude flight needs big wings, and so does dogfighting. But in the end, bigger planes could fit that capability easier! Hence I wouldnt be surprised if the slatted F-4E is a quite capable plane compared to contemporaries, even though I dont expect miracles. Yeah, I imagine theres a much bigger skill flour for those cold war jets. A bad pilot will be much more detrimental, and I dont think the F-4/Mig-21 will be that far apart in A2A combat, at least down low. The small size will be an advantage too. Tho Id note at least our DCS F-4E will have IFF. I wonder if Pave Spike has A2A mode for identification... gotta ask Zabu on the discord or so. And in a short range engagement where a Mig-21 doesnt need to worry much about fuel that alone takes a lot of pressure, similar how its with the Mig-29 and its crazy engines. Yeah no question, the Mig-29 still got some strange design choices and weird compromises Ive also heard that the Mirage F1 is actually better than the Mig-21Bis in DCS if you just take a bit less fuel. And IRL soviet planes are its own story anyways. Most of the time, they have a pretty poor track record (and idk if thats just training like people sometimes claim).
-
Tbh thats why I like these discussions though, even if we dont got a clear answer, we can play around with ideas and thoughts, and slowly build up a vague mental image thats just a bit closer to reality. Its not that common because Im better at phrasing nowadays, just sometimes people get frustrated (maybe over not knowing the answers themselves^^) and think im being purposefully contrarian or so. 100%! Nobody would build light fighters if it wasnt for cost, and especially those early to mid cold war fighters were fielded in insane numbers. Thats why I dont have that much of a time that a super expensive F-4E edges out some lighter mass produced fighters. Especially considering the F-15 really hit home on the "big fighter" part, becoming arguably the most succesful fighter of all times. Honestly, maybe the more hardcore fans might not enjoy that idea, but Im sure Id enjoy some basic logistics/RPG style system where you manage aircrafts also based on wear and repair/flight cost/time. Over the course of a dynamic campaign like Liberation maybe. Where maybe you fly an F-4 but want to fly it 'lighter' to keep wear down, or switch to a cheaper aircraft to give the big one time to repair. Wouldnt be realistic in itself, but could gamify the elements of aircraft maintenance and logistics, and connect it into a gameplay loop. Either way im really curious what modders will do with this wear and tear system.
-
True, I was actually considering to make a point about the F-16 (great dogfighter yet limited in one turn), but that would complicate the point. It was easier to limit it to the pre-80s fighters, where modern technology made it possible to fit more tech and optimization into smaller fliers. Maybe its a bit of a tangent, but I do think we can even strengthen the point when we look "why" the F-18 and Mig-29 can be so capable dogfighters. Theyre not one-turn agile for free, but rather because they made trade offs. For one, the Hornet and Mig-29 are surprisingly heavy I find; about 11 tons of empty weight. Thats closer to the F-15 with 13 tons, than the tiny Mig-21Bis with 6.3 tons. And the Mig-29 mainly sacrifices payload and fuel load (+poor avionics), its dogfighting performance comes partially from burning silly amounts of fuel. Meanwhile the Hornet sacrifices high speed performance and limits high-G maneuvering. Either got limited range compared to bigger fliers. Of course thats true for older fliers as well: Eg the Mig-21 is considered a better dogfighter in DCS than the Mirage F-1, but pays for that partially due to drawbacks like small fuel tanks, simpler avionics and overuse of its "emergency afterburner". Even that more limited dogfight performance came at a cost, being smaller didnt just make it easier to have agile birds.
-
Tbh, how much truth is there really in that light-weight fighters are better turners? After all, most of the time the best slow speed dogfighters seems to be giants like the F-14, 15 or SU-27. And they acchieve that via really big wings and powerful engines, which they have the capacity for due to their size. Now Migs do have pretty big wings compared to their weight, thats true. Even the Mig-21Bis can turn pretty hard in DCS. But what about the speed? Many planes can turn hard, stay stable, but dont benefit much from that. I think the US actually tested Mig-21s that are closer to northvietnamese fighters in a secret programs? Same one thats cited for Mig-23s being terrible turners but incredible fast (not MLA i know^^). They said Mig-21s could turn with the F-14(A?)s for about 90 degrees, but would just bleed so much speed they couldnt keep up. The high AoA stability is imo and open question, especially when you slow down. Thats one point where our 21Bis is likely unrealistic too. That combined with the speed loss Im really not sure Its necessarily "amazing" turn performance or aerodynamics? Its seems all a bit more rough and brute force. Mind im not trying to be contrarian here, its just whenever I try to learn about the topics, I just get so so many more questions than answers (cuz the topic is so complex)
-
Oh yeah, the use and tactics of the plane is quite relevant, probably more than technical charachteristics of the plane. Even beyond that, IRL Id imagine the higher range, better radar, better missiles of the F-4E would be a bigger factor fighting the Mig-21s than the difference in aerodynamic performance. To my understanding the nature of the aerial conflict was also a big factor benefitting the Migs. A2A action was quite rare, the US strategies were more concerned with the much bigger threat of SAM sites, which caused massive losses eg in the F-105 fleet. Meanwhile the Migs followed the concept of a "guerrilla war", which had them attempt to attack american formations (which again were more focussed on defending against air defense) in hit and run surprise attacks. Dogfighting likely wouldnt be smart either way, considering american superior numbers and the Migs lack of fuel/range. All of this would give Migs a big advantage in engagement, since it requires great difficulty to deal with this kind of warfare to just "even" the losses. But it also ment that the actual use and effect of north vietnamese aircraft would be quite limited, considering they couldnt openly oppose or deter attacks on their own. Even early in the war; and later the US adapted and took more decisive control of the skies, at least when it comes to air/air threats. Without trying to downplay the Vietnamese pilots acchievements, which were a thing, to me it seems a lot of the Migs' successes seems to lie in the narratives and stories we tell about their role in the war.
-
Aye, thanks! Tbh I find the Tomcat pretty well to fly as well, if the F-15E is like that or easier, then its probably quite comfortable indeed