DD_Fenrir

The book my Father’s work is in was published in 1985. Given that he is not an expert in radar systems or avionics, I suspect the Stevenson book material was used as reference and redrawn. Salamander produced a large variety of military aviation books during the 80’s; it would not surprise me that these drawings would be leveraged across other tomes, or sold to other publishers for use.

For clarity here are the originals with further details and annotations that explain some of the shown information, including a representation of the DDD showing how the MiG-21 referenced bricks should appear:

My Father and his graphic design business partner drew these originally for the book “Modern Fighting Aircraft: F-14” published by Salamander.

Wow. Gaslighting? That’s pretty <profanity>ty behaviour. But what more can we expect from angry man boy wehraboos?

This isn't FIFA 2025. Or farming simulator. The "grass" object has to pretend to be a multitude of plant types depending on the texture underneath; this same object stands in for wheat or barley on crop fields and neatly mowed grass on football fields and airfields. To be fair I think they've managed to strike a plausible balance.

Eh? There's no annular radiator on a Sea Fury; the Centaurus is a radial, cooling the cylinders by direct airflow.

That Garret looks brilliant; only issue is that it never wandered very far from the Worsborough incline (which is halfway between Sheffield and Leeds) - that's almost 150miles North of the most northerly parts of the Normandy map! I would suggest that a Southern Railway mixed traffic type would be more appropriate; perhaps an N Class mogul?

Also have a gameplan for each enemy aircraft type you encounter. Know what strengths or weaknesses you can deny or exploit in both your opponents jet and your own. Fuel and ordnance weight will also factor into what you can achieve so keep these in mind. For example, in an F-14B vs a MiG-29 choosing a 2-circle fight is not usually a great idea as under most circumstances a good MiG-29 will at least match or better your best turn-rate; this means a 1-circle is probably a better option... However, this generally means you'll need to get slower than the bandit and you'll be sacrificing kinetic energy to do so at the merge. A smart driver will use the vertical to drive their speed down to their best radius speed whilst using a gain in altitude to gain PE and mitigate the overall loss in energy. That said, if you can get your nose on faster, you can drive bad decisions from the opponent, which if you are able to expolit can compound their problems and allow you some good follow-on BFM options, if not an immediate weapons employment opportunity.

Or, let's not and let ED concentrate on progressing their proprietary software that they understand better than anyone else in a way that suits their development roadmap that suits them best. Christ, it takes long enough for new features to mature enough to be brought to the community and even then it can take some time for these to become robust and stable. You want to introduce a system that will inevitably extend these timescales?!? No. If you add an unofficial mod and it breaks the game, guess who's responsibilty that is... YOURS. You can sit and wait as the modders figure out how to make their mod re-compatible, if they are still active. If they aren't you are SOL. You did not pay for it, you are not owed a damn thing, especially not by ED. ED have acknowledged the great work done by some modders, enabling a fairly simple and segragated way of implementing them with minimum risk of breaking the game. They have even integrated some into the base game assets; however this does not make them liable and they certainly should not waste $$$ or time (frankly they are synonymous) on appeasing impatient and indignant unofficial Mod users.

Your mistake is in assuming your entitlement to that knowledge. Best get noshing old bean.

You assume a lot. Sure, Jester is lacking some capability that a human RIO would bring but at this point are you surprised? This an AI developed by a flight sim developer, not a dedicated developer of AI; that it operates the basic RIO functions as well as it does is a credit to Heatblur. And if you work with Jester and understand it’s limitations it is an eminently usable and useful system; is it fail safe? No, but 9 times out of ten it does the basic functions required by a RIO to perform intercepts. Ultimately you expect too much; would Jester benefit from adjusting scan patterns to accommodate data link contacts, sure but if it where that simple don’t you think it would have been done by now? There’s a vast amount of abstraction, extrapolation and supposition being performed in the human brain of a RIO during an aerial engagement, and expecting an AI developed for a home PC entertainment software to even begin to replicate the deeper levels of actual human cognitive processes is frankly unrealistic. The fact is Jester, when used properly is sufficient. I strongly suspect you are using it poorly and expecting it to have capabilities that mitigate for your suboptimal understanding of how to get the best from it.

We're done. We've told you what you need to provide in order to first effect review and thereafter - potentially - change. EVIDENCE. And no, "trust me dude, PvP servers don't like Phoenix" does not count, as surprising as that may seem to you. Demonstrate the problem, with repeatable examples in various .trk files. On top of that actually provide data for examples of what it should be (if you can find it). You have done literally zero of the above and as such your legitimacy is at rock-bottom and from this point forward you will struggle to make anyone in this community even bother to listen. So, before you yet again basically repeat exactly what you wrote in your OP just worded slightly differently, let me remind you that simply repeating the same thing over and over and over again doesn't actually make it objectively true. Repeated testing of evidential data against a hypothesis does. Which you have done none of.

Look, I am not saying you are automatically wrong, but there's a heap of conjecture, supposition and "I feel" in your position statement. None of this provides meaningful data to support your position. If you think something is wrong, bring a good selection of .trks (some tacviews too can help but .trks are better) demonstrating the behaviour and where you think the problem lies. Then we can talk. It doesn't help that you're essentially coming from the opposition and accusing the F-14 of having unbeatable missiles - we in the DCS: F-14 community are only too aware of the limitations and weaknessess of the Phoenix and are rather cynical when OPFOR players come in here and make unsubstantiated claims; if you're gonna do it the burden is on you to provide the proof, so bring evidence. Regards ECM resistance, this is not unique to the Phoenix, as as far as I can tell, no A2A missiles in DCS, whatever the nation/alleigance, seem to be even vaguely affected by jamming, as the DCS noise jammer is a rudimentry simulation at best, being burnt through by Air Interception radars at ranges well outside the Rne of most of the A2A missiles in DCS. Also, in real life, the AIM-54, even the -A, had the ability to automatically switch to home on jam mid flight should the track file be swamped so in RL switching on jamming might not be the best idea; in DCS if you're approaching a bandit who has a AR/SAR missile with HoJ capability it is a bad idea to have your ECM on under 20nm; ask me how I know... As an OPFOR player, if you're fighting F-14s carrying AIM-54A and you aren't dropping into the notch at regular intervals as you try and close to your effective missile range, then you're doing it wrong.

Nothing like a well evidenced argument. Oh, wait…