Zabuzard

Im sorry to stress this, but the F-4E is not a carrier compatible plane. Yes, it has a tailhook. And we simulated it fully, you can land with it on a carrier just like you could IRL with a -E in theory, with all the consequences this has. We understand people want to cosplay as Navy Phantom while waiting for the actual module that will come at some point in the future. We have heard the question and are possibly considering doing something about it. You have to understand though that time and resources are unfortunately very limited and our schedules are packed. I would love to be able to tell you "yes, cool idea, its in the next update", but this unfortunately just doesnt work. The request is a low prio item for us and its unfortunately also not a quick and easy thing to add.

True. That is an oversight. The pins currently dont have any function other than looking cool.

The changelogs are exhaustive. If its not listed, it wasnt addressed yet. Huhu. We are aware. The Phantom currently doesnt support the export stuff properly yet.

Thanks. This is a known issue and its a bit painful to fix. Requires changes throughout the entire spectrum. On the model, animations and also on the code side. It is because EDs AI code has a different understanding of the rudder animation than our model and code. The only real way is to align everything on our side to how the AI thinks it works.

If you are flying against an AI Phantom you are not fighting Jester or "our simulation" but EDs AI code, hence the different behavior. You also cant really comoare the two radars like that. They are very different IRL and also in how we and the thirdparty behind the Mig decided to simulate them. Regarding your experience in the Phantom... not sure how to help you. It seems to work well for the testers and most users. If you would have a (working) track we could probably give you very concrete feedback very quickly :)

That switch is not implemented until the DCS engine provides a way to influence the IR locking polarity. Try changing your approach angle to improve how the scene looks like to the seeker. Sun exposure also plays a high role. If you genuinely think there is a bug, please provide a working track file (singleplayer, sub 5min ideally). We can then usually tell immediately whats going on by having our debugging tools running while it plays. Cheers

They are missing due to technical issues. They will eventually be added, yes.

No worries. This kind of navigation takes time to get used to and its also too easy to forget that its not easy and obvious if you havent done this in 3 other modules before already

It will be available with the upcoming DCS update. Cheers.

It might help to read this and surrounding posts here (including step by step images) which specifically talks about this training mission as well: Cheers

Depends where those 4500 lbs are located at. And how you are flying. Remember that the totalizer includes the internal wing tanks, which do not feed with the door open. So if the totalizer shows 4500 and you had the door open, it is totally possible that those 4500 lbs were in the wing tanks, not in the fuselage cells. The moment cell 1 goes dry, your engines will flame out. You can check Cell 1 fuel by holding the "Feed Tank Check" switch behind the tailhook lever. If you are flying afterburner and perhaps some negative Gs for a bit longer you can flame out easily even with all other internal tanks still full, as the pumps alone wont be able to keep up with afterburner consumption. You need a positive gravity feed to hold the engine alive during longer AB use. There is of course also the possibility that you damaged some valves or the fuselage pumps, blocking transfer between some cells. It is really hard to go in blind here. A track would be great.

I cant find that loadout anymore. So I suppose it got fixed already If you still see it after the next DCS update, please send a screenshot with the full name of the loadout visible or something. Thank you

Thanks, investigating.

Thanks, will have a look.

When the door is open, the internal wing tanks and all ext tanks are cut off and cant feed due to pressurization changes. Further, the automatic fuel system that kicks in on low fuel is inoperative while the door is open (which is also used to turn it off again in case you have refueled after the system kicked in). The pumps you are referring to are for the internal tanks (tanks 4 and 6 to 1+2), which can still feed with the door open.

Sounds like a bug, thank you.

The upcoming update already has a command to tell Jester to refine an existing alignment. And a future update will soon contain a way to redo an alignment from scratch as well. Regarding the second point, if you align on external power you can severely damage the INS equipment when you cycle the generators to internal power, as you momentarily have to move them through the OFF position unfortunately. This is also why Jester asks if you are ready or still want to cycle generators around a bit. Only the heating phase can safely be executed at that point (which Jester starts without asking the moment the jet has power).

Ah, that is a known issue and not an oversight. It is because these knobs have a complex interaction (they must be pushed/pulled before they can be moved) and that requires some extra effort before they can support our bind-interface.

The Emergency Brake isnt a brake. It reroutes hydraulic power to the brakes to enable you to use the wheel brakes even if the normal hydraulic feed failed.

Sorry, I do not quite follow. Could you elaborate?

The AI topic has not been touched yet. You will see it in the changelogs if it was fixed :)

No. It is currently not planned for Jester to support Mavericks. (Mavericks are usually, not always ofc, controlled by the pilot in the Phantom)

We have seen these a few times. Quite rare and, as you said, no one really knows where its coming from. We are still hoping that someone is able to capture it on a working track (short, singleplayer). Then we can probably nail it down quickly from there. Nasty one...

See, that is what I mean. The actual use case is that you want to follow your flight lead in bad weather conditions. So what you actually want is not "hey WSO, please put the radar on 5nm... now on 10nm please... now 5nm again...", but "hey WSO, can you put our flight lead on the radar please, I am having a hard time seeing him". "Focus" sounds like a good choice for that. You are right ofc that the flight lead might not show up in the list for some reason and that is something we can change and influence. I would be surprised though if merely changing the display range changes much on that regard, as it is just the range of the display, not "radar range". The radar capabilities are not affected by the display range at all. Whether an aircraft will show up on the screen or not does not depend on that setting at all. The return will or will not show up on your screen at the same moment, 5nm or 50nm - just at a different location. In either case, Jester would/should be able to identify it immediately and from there FOCUS should be available. What we could for example do is to add anything in visible range or aircraft from the own flight or faction into the FOCUS/LOCK lists regardless of whether its visible on the screen or not. This ties in with the planned addition of adding targets from AWACS and RWR into "Jester Radar".

We have seen similar issues ourselves already as well. Its a weird one and probably has to do with fine tuning some friction values on the wheels - but that also influences how they behave during landing etc. It is all very finicky to get right.