Temetre

Good point, someone also point that out to me on the discord. The only thing required for full supporte of STARMs on the F-4E is apparently a panel, and maybe software. I think F-4Gs are also very close to F-4Es.

Interesting! I was mostly pointing that out because Kermit seemed to say the F-8 were beloved because of their gun. Im not disagreeing the gun is useful. Im happy were getting an F-4 with gun in DCS

Tribalistic nonsense. Gotta make up groups so you can villify them for having differing opinions, I suppose.

Tbf most of the times theres tons of seperate manuals. Seems to vary quite a bit how complete the 'main' manual is.

Pilots are biased. If they are not trained to use a weapon, which has some reliability issues, and then see the weapon missed most of the predictably bad shots... yeah, of course they might think its a bad weapon and they dont wanna bet their life on it. Guns are much more predictable and under their control. Same way pilots might dislike the "feel" of FBW, when in reality it gives them so much more control about what the plane is doing, just in a more indirect way. But that doesnt mean the weapon is bad. The bit about "theres a low chance to hit" usually depends on the usage of the weapon, and you cant tell me that guns have an easy time getting kills. And its actually the prefered strategy for missiles these days to go for low risk low kill chance shots. Do that enough and you get a kill, without putting your plane too much into danger. And I think the numbers really back that up. Idk how accurate Wikipedia is, but the US aerial victory list shows 19 F-8 kills over vietnam. And the Aim-9 article claims 16 kills by F8s with Aim-9s. All available data seems to show that guns dont bring many planes down, but missiles do. The F-105s have an extraordinary amount of gun kills, but that plane was also taken out of service because of massive losses. You could say thats because its a bomber, but thats also true for the F-4s: Not all Phantoms lost were in fighter configuration.

The USAF made a lot of wrong calls. Black Wednesday happening shows clearly they didnt understand the conflict, hence they tried to adapt. And considering the F-4 went on to get most of its kills with missiles, I think that shows that a lack of gun wasnt the problem. Rather than the well docummented lack of strategy, communication and training in the scenario they found over vietnam. Late in the war, sparrows became the most effective weapon IIRC, even beyond sidewinders. The USN had better training from the beginning, and never struggled quite as much. The gun pod also seems more like a token gesture, or something for ground attack, considering how bad pods are for dogfighting (drag+no radar sight).

You could even say the F-104 was a bit too exciting

Only the 104S can use Sparrows. The G's radar doesnt got an illuminator to guide missiles.

I would argue that the F-4 proved that the cannon might be useful, but it wasnt really necessary. Even after the cannon-variant was introduced, most kills came in equal measures from Sparrows and Sidewinders. Pilots just got better at using the missiles, while technical shortcomings were sorted out. In the latter part Sparrows got most kills afaik. Its harder to make a judgement about the F-104 imo, but the concept itself might be flawed. If youre that fast, its gotta be very hard to get accurate gun hits with a B&Z fighter.

And mind that many of the 20mm kills are from F-105s. They only got two sidewinder kills. No kills for F-104s. If you look at F-4s, they are much more about Aim9/7s.

DCS is not doing trying to simulate as accurately as possible. As evidence, just watch the show with wags, where he talks about ballpark numbers, leaving out declassified features, that kinda stuff. He says they dont want a sim that "bad guys" can use for planning. Yet pretty much every scenario in DCS is fictional. Those specific SU-27s flying in DCS are almost always in places and times they dont belong. That shows that the purist view ignores the reality of the game. The use of "realism" is almost parody, when "this exact aircraft configuration" is presented as the hight of realism, and the scenario is just handwaved away. Let alone how the SU-27S is a simplified module, so it doesnt even hold up to the limited realism of FF modules. As said, Im not saying the missiles should be added to the plane, but the idea of adding them being a bigger breach of realism than anything else doesnt make sense. It might even be more believable in the common fictional conflicts in DCS, thats a context where fictional upgrades make more sense than outdated variants. You think ED is trying to make realistic tanks and ships in DCS? You can make an argument where planes and game system take shortcuts, but tanks/ships should be much more obivous. Who said that its problematic? My point was that this view of the game doesnt add up. If anything, I would turn your point around: People pretending DCS is trying to be an ultra realistic simulator are the ones who dont understand the game. Its the most realistic game simulating those planes in combat, maybe. But its clearly a game, even ED representatives are saying so. All those instant action missions, the comfort options like airstarts, the fast tutorials, air-pause, all that stuff is sign of a game trying to make learning and flying fun and accessible. Not just have the most super realistic sim. Wags talked about features they cant add or dont want to. And its not the "most realistic simulator", already because commercial sims exist. Let alone there being some big holes even in recent official modules. Isnt it telling that people even made this argument about FC3 planes, which are not even trying to be super realistic? They can do so if they want. But Im pretty sure theyd lose to commercial/military simulators. Eg the Mirage F-1s radar? Thats not realistic at all, they clearly made compromises. Frankly, "the most realistic simulation" is marketing speech, that only works compared to games. Not compared to simulators.

DCS itself runs counter to that philosophy. You cannot cite that statement and tell me you think thats serious word for word.

Normally Id be fine to have reasonable upgraded versions fitting the timeframe, and where implementation is obvious (software/controls wise). Eg if were flying a flanker in a 2010 DCS scenario, then its only realistic to have R-77/77-1. Just limiting yourself to exact historical gear at one point isnt really any more realistic, when you put the aircraft into different settings and timeframe. 'Purist' are way too eager to ignore that reality. That said, afaik we dont really got much data on 77-1, and I dont really want more magical overpowered weapons based on brochure numbers. Eg the JF-17 might be a cool module, but its got a history of being overmodeled, both in weapons and flight performance. FC3s SU-27/33 also seems a bit too good to be true, according to some tests of ITR+STR values. Let alone the IRST "radar". DCS isnt perfectly replicating planes, that should be obvious. Already for military secrecy reasons. Wags in an interview even recently said theyre sometimes putting aircraft/gear more in the ballpark numbers, to make sure it cant be used for military purposes by "bad guys". Left out features from declassified documents for that reason. Also called it a simulator game btw.

Sorry, in that post I was found I was just being kinda dumb and unintentionally hand updated the game, because i used the MT exe. So my issues mightve been just fixed by finally having the first update since 1.5 month with the re-download. That said, there was a lot of pretty serious performance and loading issues, which plagued my experience for a while, that got fixed with that. Like 2 minute loading times and stutter-issues had been a thing for me for a long time. Actually forgot how much better and faster the game ran at the start, until I did the reinstall. So im not sure, if it was really just an update that fixed everything, but sadly I cant tell.

And the Hornet spends quite some time accelerating over the runway. Frankly, this looks quite a bit slower than our DCS Hornet?

Tbf it might be even darker when you remove the jpeg compression, that tends to lighten up super dark places. I dont think it looks normal tho. I mean if thats what you ment sure, but its not the only plane I experienced it in^^ Just tested it with F-16, still lighting bug. Wouldve been surprised if it the plane. I think its the map, some weather stuff or a buggy generated map.

I dont think it should be this dark when the moon is so bright you cant see stars. Now I dont know how it looks on your OLED screen, and whats your brightness is (have you vesa 400/600 HDR actived?), but on an LCD it doesnt look normal at all. And the majority of people uses LCDs, so I doubt thats intentional. Why are you trying to downplay my point then, when you dont know? Its not about "far away lights" or whatever.

Yes, I can see some atmosphere on my screen too (without clouds in my example too). Especially on a full moon it would be pretty strange if this near total darkness was intentional, however? Ive had the issue in other planes as well IIRC, at least in the A-4 mod. Or is this a known issue?

Your screen looks like theres more than just stars missing. Possibly you got the same issue like me, with light bugging out?

I found lighting in this generated mission to be consistently bugged, even after a restart of the game. Ive uploaded it, can someone check it out? Requires Syria+Mig-21: _Syria_DarkmissionBUG.miz The issue can be "fixed" by changing the time of day, but setting the clock to 18:00 brings the issue back. ------------------------------------- This is a bug Ive had for a bit from time to time. Ive had this issue in unmodded installs, though this one has Mig-21 sound mod and A-4 Mod. Maybe someone can give input, if its known? This is a mission from DCS' mission generator, with Mig-21. Usually this lighting issue ive got at evening to morning times, the game will just go pitch dark, as if they lighting fails. Its cloudly and maybe raining, not sure. But clouds are pitch black too, only the horizon above the clouds shows some lights. Aircraft and landing lights are dark too, only positoin lights can be somewhat seen. This is after I landed on Jirah airstrip, ive slightly overshoot and am lower left of the runway, in a Mig-21Bis: Zoomed in, my Mig-21 is in the blue circle, you can very slightly see left/right wing landing lights. Mind, my landing lights and position lights are set to max, with full cockpit lighting. So it should be very well visible.

I know theres peopel who enjoy backseating, I think its just conceptually something that appeals to a lot fewer people than flying the planes. And DCS is quite niche in the first place. The F-15E in the backseat you got a ton of stuff you can do, many powerful features and abilities. Its probably the most exciting backseating experience you can have. I suspect the F-4G would be more like constantly listening to RWR tones, memorizing tons of different tones, giving directions while constantly scanning. During the entirety of the flight, you gonna do that monotonous work. Of course you gonna still operate the radar or guide the rare maverick, but thats not the main job. F-4G is only made for one role really. I cannot imagine that many people will enjoy operating a 4G that way.

Afaik the RWR-stuff in the rear of the F-4G was also insanely complicated in reality, with rear seaters having to learn a hundred plus sound signatures or so. Listen to them all flight. I wonder if this plane might be so niche its not a viable module. Like, how many people do even want to backseat? How many want to be in the backseat of an F-4G, and reguarly stay there? For Heatblur to do make this plane, it would have to pay back the money, and be worth to do this plane rather than the alternatives. Even if it was sold as a 3rd F-4 module (after E + Naval), it would have to compete with modernized variants, like F-4F ICE, and earlier F-4Cs or so. Not that Im against an F-4G or so. It just seems like thres a lot of "ifs" that stand in the way.

Yes, I was mostly confused because what you said wasnt applicable to the case of the F-4 in DCS. Or even the reason people want to have a preorder for the F-4. I mean thats kinda passive aggressive, isnt it? If you consider my post unfair or anything, just say so. Its just discussing views and behaviours after all.

You actually had me for most of that post

Or X52/56 stick with phantom command?