PhantomHans

They did lots of other weird stuff but didn't they also "slant load" the inboard pylons at some point? 750s on the bottom and inboard TER mounts leaving room for one AIM-9 rail and missile each side?

I've had this same issue as well but I'm also just getting poor radar performance out of Jester. Flying at 13,000ft looking for targets at 15,000 to 20,000 he can't seem to find them until WVR.

Way back in rue days of LOMAC, EM was an ER with more range. EA was an ER wirh R77 seeker head. IMHO while the regular 29 shouldn't get things that are rumors or it can't actually use (As a 9.12A, I think somebody said only 10 got the R-77 launching upgrade), I think perhaps having a separate aircraft that can use them would be good for balance on some servers against modern NATO aircraft even if nothing else is changed. This may also include guided AG weapons not normally carried by a 9.12 model.

I remember reading a thread somewhere in here about R-27ER/ET/P/EP/EA/EM and R-77 for the full feature MiG-29 and the general consensus being that it wouldn't get them. That's accurate and that's fine. But at least for the time being, can we perhaps get a second one labeled as "Experimental" or something like that to allow access to those type of inaccurate or questionable weapons? That way servers can simply exclude the entire A/C that may have inappropriate features, but in SP we'll have the option to include hypothetical upgrade models of the 29 in missions.

That's all I had ever seen it carry in photos. I was hoping people in here would know for sure. I wondered if any of its 3rd world users had ever been forced to bolt on older weapons though.

They're very similar missiles. The 9J was the improved version of the 9E. Entered production in 1972. AIM-9N was originally the J-1, has some redesigned circuit boards for better seeker performance. Dates to 1973. The 9P is an improvement over the 9N, but was sponsored by the USAF mainly for export sale. It seems that some found their way into USAF service anyway. The 9P base model is a 9N with a bit more range, deliveries starting 1978. (I previously called it a 9J with more range but I suppose it's actually a J-1 aka N derivative) P-1 had a new fuze, P-2 a lower smoke motor, P-3 improved lots of small things like construction, strength, reliability, etc. P-4 added the 9L's all aspect seeker technology and P-5 added improved countermeasures resistance. No idea when each came into service. TLDR: 9E -> 9J -> 9N -> 9P -> 9P-3 -> 9P-5, P-5 is all aspect. P-1,P-2,P-4 not yet in game AFAIK. Each is better than the last but a 9L or 9M is better than a P-5.

From what I understand: During the Vietnam Era the USAF preferred using the pair of wing tanks. The USN preferred using a single centerline tank, despite the risk of a bridle slap puncturing the tank during launch. It seems this was a trim/balance/handling thing. The centerline tank would obstruct the forward AIM-7s but you can always jettison it in order to fire them. It would not have prevented them being loaded. Later on the preference among most or all users switched to the centerline tank. During the later part of the Phantoms career, the use of F-15 centerline tanks became common as they were rated for more Gs. You'll find that the F-4G used the center tank almost exclusively to keep the wings open for missiles.

Is he on an old school HDD instead of an SSD, and if so, could that be his issue? My vintage POS box is an FX8350 I've OC'd to 4.6ghz, 32gb of 1600mhz DDR3 pushed close to 1700, no paging file, and a 6gb RTX 2060 which isn't really great, but OS and game installed on SSD... The F-4E module is causing me random crashes and I had to drop my detail settings for it to get acceptable FPS. I get FPS in the 30-60 (my FPS cap) range in simple missions with the F-4E. For example, 2v2 F-4E vs MiG-21 on the Nevada map. My problem with the F-4E module so far is the random crashes rather than FPS although I admit my system is DEFINITELY struggling with it. I can't tell if my crashes are CPU or GPU related, but I REALLY hope that somebody from Heatblur (Maybe I should @IronMike?) will see if they can make another option, at least for a while, to heavily chop away at some of the F-4E's level of detail in systems modeling and help out those of us with sucky systems. Even if it's a single-player only feature, at least for now, it would be great to be able to simplify it's modeling while it's teething and being improved. Obviously, I am due for a new motherboard, RAM, and processor...But...Look it's what I've got...Tax return time...Or maybe my next quarterly bonus check... My usual DCS settings: Where I've turned it all down to get the F-4E flying so far in simple 2v2 type missions:null

OK I want to ask about the radar. Why can't Jester break out radar contacts beyond visual range? I've been flying 1v1 against MiG-21, MiG-23, etc, and I have yet to see radar lock before I had the little dot of the enemy aircraft in sight. I understand that the F-4E radar wasn't long range, but I was expecting to get contacts at ranges of something like 20 miles, not ranges of 5-10 miles. @IronMike I wonder if someone from HeatBlur can weight in on this. I thought I heard the radar was based on "true raycasting" which I thought was a graphics thing. Is it possible that my low end graphics settings are screwing something up for the implementation of this system?

I don't think the one Heatblur has modeled would have been able to do so. There were at least two variants in service in numbers that could do so. The Luftwaffe F-4F ICE could carry the AIM-120, but among other upgrades featured the APG-65 radar. The F-4E AUP used by the Greek air force had a similar upgrade package. IIRC, Japan had some F-4EJ upgraded to "EJ Kai" standard that included a more modern radar, can't remember if it was APG-65, 66, or 68 or something like that, but their upgrade did not include the AIM-120. So, yes, but not the ones we have in game. Although I'd really love to see an F-4F ICE some day for DCS.

My only complaint are tons of random crashes. It's hard to get past 10 minutes in a simple mission. I have an older system and I have slashed away at graphics settings to the point where I'm easily holding 40-60fps, but the sudden crashes are killing me. I haven't had these with any other modules. I'm hoping that in the future the lower sim rate box will offer a drastically reduced demand F-4, maybe that will help with my crashes?

Tbh it's been running all the modules I own (Except for the bew F-4E which is a crash-o-matic so far in the tutorials) just fine. And even then I think that's GPU...Not sure yet... Although it's overclocked and I do have to run at relatively "meh" graphics settings I came to DCS from SFP2 so it still looks better. Heck I'm running above min settings and getting to my 60fps limit when doing 1v2 F4 vs MiG-21. If it doesn't crash my only problem seems to be Jester can't find anything on radar BVR.

...So how bad is my FX8350 gonna choke?

I'm in favor of just disabling Jesters ejection seat.... ...although much to my surprise I haven't actually had him eject on me yet.

I'm curious about two things right now. First, around what time did the inboard pylon mounted countermeasures appear? AFAIK they were not original equipment but I'm unsure of exactly when they were added. Second, when did the "Special Weapons Adapter" show up to allow weapons together with AIM-9s on the inboard pylons show up, and which users used them? Previously I've seen Phantoms with bombs and AIM-9s mounted together, but the only combo of missile and AIM-9 was a West German F-4F with one AGM-65 and Sidewinders, so I want to be sure I don't start making missions that aren't accurate.

I thought Mooch's comment was confirmed to be incorrect some time ago? I know that he was asked a couple times in the comments to explain his remark in detail but didn't bother to do so.

I've been having the issue with the single player missions,not with the training lessons. In particular the "Interdiction " mission to bomb supply depots and the anti ship mission to hunt down a Neutrashimy class frigate. I find that I hear my wingman and ground control but my ability to speak to them is sporadic at best.

Basically makes the module not playable. I've spent plenty of time studying it, but I want to say that 9 out of 10 times I simply don't have radio contact with wingmen. I check the buttons and groups I watch youtube videos and study the manual, then mash at my PTT key binds praying for a response that never comes. I'm sick of it. Just make this thing work with easy comms please. Edit: To explain a little more, I'm finding the correct frequency. I can hear my flight calling things out. Sometimes I use the standard \ menu keybind and they respond. Usually they don't. Sometimes I use the FR-22 keybind and they'll respond, usually they dont. Sometimes I use the FR-24 keybind and they'll respond. Usually they don't. The last time I flew the AJS-37 I could hear the allied flights normally, but when trying to transmit the menu closed, my pilot says nothing, no response, on all radios. I'm not sure why I'm having this issue with the AJS-37 but it's making the module not so fun. The only other problems I have ever had were with the F-14, and only then in a campaign with some unique scripted radio stuff, and only here and there now and then.

Which leads me to some questions... What time frame, and why only one outboard? I imagine that upset the trim quite a bit.

IMHO absolutely a must have map. I agree with the choice to freeze the map at a certain time frame. It would be impossible to keep up with every change, every addition, etc. I do wish that they would make efforts to fully finish it eventually even if it meant using existing objects and not making new ones.

Well, I wouldn't mind it if the E model could catch a wire with its tail hook, or if it could be spawned in to launch from a position hooked up to catapult. I know it's not correct, but until such time as we get an F-4A/B/G/J/N/S Navy Phantom, IMHO, it would be slightly better than nothing. At least with the gun disabled, the slats make it relatively close to the S series. Besides they're already making USN paint schemes for it and it's only a matter of time until it shows up with RN K model or RAF M model paintjobs... Edit: This is to say that, yhea, what I really wanna see is a correct USN/USMC Phantom but until then, because we're already going to be playing pretend, we may as well play pretend...

If that's on the current map as it exists as only a flat 2D satellite photo, then that's not a complete map... I'd be in favor of completing the map using already existing assets to fill in that area as best as it can possibly be done. The alternative would be to erase it completely with blank empty open ground, which I would probably rather have than be constantly teased by it.

Id be perfectly happy to get basic AI versions soon and get fully polished modules later. If it means A-6/A-7 thay are only able to do dumb bombs, a few guided weapons like Walleye and GBU, HARMs, and self defense AIM-9 then that's plenty. They can skip guns and rockets for all I care. I just want them for the eye candy.

@NineLine @BIGNEWY Since somebody brought this up, although I hope it will not be for a very, very, VERY long time (preferably never tbh), I hope than when Eagle Dynamics decides its time to shut down the "phone home" servers we will get a final patch to enable us to play without them. Nothing should change until the plug is going to be pulled, but I think committing not to leave a "dead" game would be a good message for the industry as a whole.

Is there a way to script a refill under applicable conditions rather than to toggle on unlimited fuel? For example to say: 1. Player AC is within 0.3nm of tanker. 2. Player AC has extended the fuel probe or opened the receptacle doors. 3. Player AC may now do F10 -> "Fill Tanks", to set a 100% fuel load, and continue flying the same aircraft, with limited fuel. I'm hoping there's a way to script this, I'm playing single player and looking for fun and entertainment, not frustration.