PhantomHans

Okay think of it like this... The radar is a flashlight that lights up the target so the missile can see it. If you "lock" the target, the computer keeps your light on the target for you so the missile can see it. If you go to CAGE and keep the pipper on or near the target, the radar just shines its flashlight ahead of you like the headlights on a car. As long as you turn to keep the target in the light, the missile can still see it, even without locking on.

Depending on the target its possible the missile went into HOJ mode, Home On Jam, and followed a jammer signal to the target...Or maybe your side lobes did you a favor and kept him illuminated but I don't think that should work. MAAAYYYBE one of your wingman if present had it locked and it was able to follow that signal but I don't think that should work either.

I'm guessing probably no different than going from SU-33 to F-14 to F/A-18 to F-4. Unless you only buy and fly a single module I think you're going to have to get used to mixing it up a little. And remember that Navy Phantoms had changes in their day too. If you're used to landing an F-4B,G,N or J on a carrier an F-4S might be different with the slats.

Unless I'm mistaken this is basically the F-4's version of "Flood" mode. Your radar points straight ahead broadcasting. If you fire an AIM-7, itll home in on the biggest reflection it sees. If the target maneuvers out of the illuminated area, the missile goes dumb. Basically its a manual lock where you point the whole jet to steer the radar.

I admit it feels sluggish in terms of straight line acceleration but only a little bit. Bleeding speed in turns doesn't surprise me. Didn't they used to say the Phatom was good for one good turn, maybe two, and then totally spent on energy?

Oh... You know what, I got used to using the radio buttons and not the easy com button when playing F-14A in a campaign but I bet it's still enabled in my settings. Could that be causing the conflict?

The great thing about simulators and simulations is thay they can be used to test out wild and inappropriate things, like F-16s on a carrier. In the case of the F-4E, not only is it the only flyable (official) F-4 we have, but it comes from a family of carrier capable aircraft. The F-4E may not have been carrier capable, but the F-4A,B,G,J,K,N,S certainly were. The 4E has similar slats to the 4S, though not exactly identical, broadly similar weapons, although a different radar. If you strip it of gun ammo and paint it like a Navy jet apparently it's close enough for some for the time being to pretend a little bit for the sake of fun. So I understand why they do it or want to do it......For now. When Heatblur releases an F-4J, then I think an appropriate question to F-4E on carriers might just be "Why not buy that one?"

You can definitely trap just fine. Elsewhere I argued that, although incorrect, because people were going to do it anyway, they should enable it to at least start hooked up to a catapult or otherwise be able to hook up to a catapult somehow, until such time as the real naval F-4 module was released. Leave it as an unsupported and undocumented feature. An "easter egg" of you will. But some heads around here would probably explode at the unrealism of it and whip into violent anger about other people having fun.

Module really needs it IMHO. Even if he's only able of helping with certain things.

It sounds to me like "Loft" in a Shrike basically just tells the missile to cage the fins and go straight until it has passed a certain amount of altitude increase. You shoot it upwards and after it's gone up a certain amount it'll start to guide.

I feel like you're gonna certainly need more than one per battery. With the A model accuracy you're probably looking at 4x for the same radar tbh. The B seems much more effective though.

Right I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree and use that ignore button to enhance our experience here.

That's pretty much what I've been doing. It's a rare thing. I would have guessed side lobe due to the sweeping but seemed odd to see that with the radar "locked". Anyway...F-14B Upgrade with Sparrowhawk HUD...$10.99 add on module coming soon please after Phantom is done? Lol.

Okay that explains part of it! I assumed he'd be making some errors somewhere but didn't realize how far off he could be. Any idea about the strange locked target behavior?

You heard him Heatblur. The F-14 has knobs in the cockpit labeled "not modeled" on the tool tip and some things in the cockpit not modeled at all. Turn off the entire module until this is solved please. And some of the settings for the AJS-37 jammer aren't modeled, please remove the module until that's fixed. The F-16C doesn't have the data cartridge modeled yet either so we should turn that whole module off too.

There are tons of things in DCS that aren't finished, are missing features, have parts not modeled, or have guesswork involved. I'm glad all of THOSE things got your personal stamp of approval.

For what its worth, I would be willing to shell out an extra $10.99 to get an F-14B Upgrade with the new Sparrowhawk HUD as an add-on module. I know that the work to make it isn't exactly free and I don't think they ever discussed bringing it into DCS to begin with. @IronMike If you guys make a Sparrowhawk HUD in an F-14B happen, I'll pony up that $10.99 immediately. Just saying. Even if you've got to fudge some things. As far as the D model goes, yhea, sure, I'd love to have one. IMHO due to all of the rework you're really talking about a totally new separate module at that point. The most exciting part about the 14D to me is the new cockpit. If there was such a thing as a 14B with the MFDs up front I would be all over that thing and asking that they make it.

I'm getting good locks and good kills, although Jester can and will get bad locks and report them as a good lock, as well as his general inability to find targets past 10 miles or so. Eta: Sometimes Jester reports a contact along the correct bearing, at the right range, but apparently the wrong altitude. Like a contact at 10,000 when I know the bad guy is at 15,000. Sometimes he will lock, and report a good lock, but I'll see a signal on the scope with lots of noise and an ASE dot that swings quickly from side to side. Actually now that I think about it, it seems to move at about the scan speed of the radar in search...Which would make me think it's related except for being in STT so the system shouldn't be swinging the dish...

I'm getting good locks and good kills, although Jester can and will get bad locks and report them as a good lock, as well as his general inability to find targets past 10 miles or so.

Any idea if the AGM-45B will ever be an official part of the 4E module? Played around with it unofficially and I think it's better. It's actually hitting maybe 50/50 if I can keep a radar locked on me till impact.

You know. Sometimes, you have to wing it a little bit. If they would add it without the datalink and simply say "Datalink classified, it's not here." then that would be perfectly fine by me. You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet. If they would add it with a fictional "This is close to how it works but not exactly it" datalink, then that would be perfectly fine by me. You don't get the datalink, but we get the jet with A datalink. If they would add it with the US datalink, "Hey this one does the thing, but it's not really right", I'm still OK with that. We still get the jet, and we get a datalink. They could do that, and say "You'll get the right thing later, when it's declassified, in 40 years". But some people just can't compromise, and so, they get to have nothing instead. ETA: What I think they should do, is to do the best job they can. If they decide to make the J-35 and/or JA-37 as playable FC3 level modules, I will purchase if the price is right. If they have to leave something out, it should be declared that it was left out, and explained why it was left out. If they decide to do a substitution or to just "make something up", then they should declare what was done, and explain why. That's all. I think in a simulation it's perfectly acceptable to say openly "Hey, we didn't really know how this worked, it's all classified anyway, so, here's our best guess, this is why." and give it a shot.

Wait until they find out about Tritium illuminated clocks...

Same here, and... I would be glad to pay money for a JA-37 without datalink, or with a fictional datalink to perform the function without revealing classified secrets, with a datalink just taken from the F-14 module, etc. Anything, really, to get the JA-37 into the game. In fact, I would be perfectly happy to pay for an FC3 level cockpit and avionics module of both the J-35 and JA-37, provided that the weapons, radar, and flight models were up to DCS standards. Meaning that basically, I want to interact with the radar in a realistic way, I want the radar to perform in a realistic way, I want the jet to fly and maneuver in a realistic way, and I want its weapons to be employed and to perform in a realistic way, however I am willing to overlook simplifications and omissions elsewhere. I'm hoping that the Kola map will allow a campaign builder like @Reflected to cook up some REAL good stuff for us in the future... One of my first flight sims was Fleet Defender. Three of the six campaigns in it were centered around the "North Cape", basically that map extended a bit further south than what we have in game. Those of you who had it will remember: "Fighting Withdrawal" - The Soviets attack south through Norway, hopping from airbase to airbase, while TU-95s try to locate your carrier group. Failure to keep them away means TU-22s and TU-16s attacking your carrier group in large numbers. On land, NATO fights a losing battle and tries to escape. "Return to Norway" - Your carrier group comes back, this time with another CVN, with the goal of sinking the Soviet fleet and assisting amphibious landings to take back Norway. Failure means large numbers of land based strike fighters like SU-17 and SU-25 coming after your fleet with TU-16/22 not far behind. "Kola Strike" - Attacks against Soviet bases on the Kola peninsula. I say remake it. Those had F-14s flying CAP and Intercept, and escorting F/A-18s, A-6s, and A-7s attacking land and sea targets. Norwegian F-16s defending their home bases. Sweden and Finland were neutral in those scenarios, and Swedish Viggens and Finnish MiG-21s would attack any airspace violators. The Soviets had MiG-29s and SU-27s protecting their air assets.

Dumb question but....Does it need the flashlight shined on it first? lol

I'm guessing the Soviets/Russians just haven't found this to be a requirement. But wasn't there a derivative, SU-30something, that could do drop tanks?